Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Zimbabwe

Mr. Michael Fallon: When he next plans to meet the Zimbabwean high commissioner to discuss the rule of law in Zimbabwe. [154087]

Mr. John Townend: What plans he has to visit Zimbabwe to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [154089]

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [154094]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We deplore the escalating attacks on human rights in Zimbabwe. Of particular concern has been the enforced retirement of the Chief Justice following threats to his life; the destruction of the printing press of the only independent daily newspaper; the expulsion of foreign journalists for criticising the regime; and the continuing political intimidation, which has claimed more than 40 lives in the last 12 months.
In view of the deteriorating standard of human rights, we have decided that Zimbabwe is no longer an appropriate base for the British military team that provides regional training in peacekeeping. It will have left by this weekend.
We were successful in securing a statement from last week's meeting of Commonwealth Ministers recording our common concern at the intimidation of the judiciary and the media. The meeting agreed to send a ministerial delegation to Zimbabwe to convey our collective concerns and to prepare advice for Commonwealth Heads of Government.
Britain will continue to take every responsible step, both bilaterally and through the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations, to impress on the Government of Zimbabwe the fact that their behaviour

is unacceptable by modern standards and denies the people of Zimbabwe the freedom, the safety and the rights to which they are entitled.

Mr. Fallon: Given that the Mugabe regime is now flagrantly abusing human rights, as the Foreign Secretary described, is it not time to admit that the policy of deploring and issuing statements—all the ethical posturing—has failed? Is it not time to put serious pressure on the regime by freezing the assets of the corrupt Government, banning travel by Mugabe's associates and getting tough with that regime?

Mr. Cook: May I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman of what we have done in the past year? We have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe; we have stopped the supply of Land Rovers to the Zimbabwean police; and we have cut the aid that we give to Zimbabwe and focused entirely on humanitarian aid, such as combating AIDS. We have used the Commonwealth to condemn what has been happening in Zimbabwe and to send observers to the elections; we now have dialogues with the European Union under the Cotonou agreement, which provides the possibility of restricting aid to Zimbabwe.
That is a formidable list of action that has been taken. On the question of freezing assets, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Emergency Powers Act 1964 makes provision for us to freeze assets only where there is a threat to the welfare of the United Kingdom. It has been used only twice since 1964—once against Iraq and once against Argentina, and on both occasions we were at war with those countries. That is the very reason why the previous Conservative Government considered the question, but ruled out an assets freeze against General Abacha, when he was in power in Nigeria.

Mr. Townend: This is not just a case of harassment of the opposition and the judiciary; we are talking about murder and torture. If the Government really have an ethical foreign policy, why are they not proposing that Zimbabwe be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth? Why are they not suspending unilaterally British economic aid? Why do they not declare Mugabe to be guilty of gross abuse of human rights and arrange for him to be arrested if, like Pinochet, he sets foot in the European Union or Britain? If the Foreign Secretary will not do that, is it not a sign of double standards? Will he accept that a large proportion of the Zimbabwean population are a lot worse off now than they were under Ian Smith?

Mr. Cook: I welcome the first statement that I have heard from a Conservative Member in support of our action on General Pinochet; I note that that is another Conservative U-turn. We have unilaterally suspended economic aid to Zimbabwe, and now provide no aid to the Government themselves. We have pared aid by one third, and now provide it to those who are suffering from HIV, to try to combat AIDS and provide clean sanitation in the villages of Zimbabwe. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman imagines we would increase pressure on President Mugabe if we withdrew that support for the poor people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. O'Brien: In the context of the Foreign Secretary's withered so-called ethical foreign policy, and in the light


of the terrifying and unjustified expulsion of the BBC correspondent, Joseph Winter—along with his wife Anne-Marie and their baby daughter Anenti—who reported that
the opposition MP, Job Sikhala and his pregnant wife, white farmers and suspected opposition sympathisers in remote areas with only a mud wall and straw roof to protect themselves, have been beaten, tortured and killed",
does the Foreign Secretary accept that Mr. Mugabe is both responsible for and presides over a tyrannical regime?

Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and fully endorse his description of the expulsion of the BBC journalist, about which we have protested vigorously, and shall continue to do so. The Harare declaration provides clear principles for the rule of law, freedom of speech and democratic principles. Plainly, but ironically, Zimbabwe itself is now in breach of that declaration.

Mr. David Winnick: In condemning again the Mugabe regime's thuggery, murders, intimidation and its playing of the race card, does my right hon. Friend not agree that such condemnation best comes from those who have always attacked tyrannies—not the Opposition who, time and again, have defended previous tyrannies in South Africa and been apologists for Pinochet and his murderous regime? We need no lectures from Tory Members.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. To sharpen the point, the House and those on the Opposition Benches might wish to recall that it was the Conservative Government who presided over the government of Great Britain at the time of the Matabeleland massacres, which led to the killing of 10,000 people in Zimbabwe and took place over a period of two or three years, during which there was not a word of criticism from any Minister. There was no cut in overseas aid—on the contrary, Lady Thatcher increased aid by £10 million at the time of the massacres. No attempt was made to use the Commonwealth against Zimbabwe at the time. It is no wonder that President Mugabe let it be known that he was grateful for the British Government's restraint. In the light of their inactivity at the time, it is rich hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Opposition to criticise us for not doing more.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that consistency requires that Zimbabwe should be treated the same as any other Commonwealth country that was found to be intimidating judges, expelling independent journalists and seeking to use intimidation and other weapons of repression against its political opponents? A Government adhering to the principles of the Harare declaration of 1991 would not have anything to hide. In those circumstances, does not the refusal of the Mugabe Government to receive a mission of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers tell us all that we need to know?

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. We will not accept it the first time President Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe says no. I welcome the statement by the Secretary-General that he will continue to press for the delegation to be received. The reason that the Zimbabwe Government seek not to receive

it is that they know full well what a serious step it is for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to agree to send a delegation. I hope that they will stop pretending that this is all a British conspiracy, when it was a decision taken unanimously—unanimously—by eight representatives of Commonwealth countries representing those members of the Commonwealth charged with keeping close tabs on violations of human rights. I believe that the delegation must be met. If not, that will send a strong signal to all the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Francis Maude: I do not recall the Labour Opposition of the late 1980s fulminating much about Mr. Mugabe, either.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Mugabe was presented with a massive propaganda coup when he was received in state recently by the Prime Minister of Belgium and the President of France? The Foreign Secretary has said that written advice was given to the Belgian Government. Will he publish that advice? Is he aware that Belgian MEPs are saying that not only did the British Government appear unconcerned about the visit, but that they were privately supportive of it? What does that shabby episode say about the Foreign Secretary's willingness to stand up for ethical values, and what does it say about his influence with our European partners?

Mr. Cook: I have no problems with publishing the advice, which I will happily send to the right hon. Gentleman and place in the Library. It set out the scale of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. We have since been advised by the Foreign Minister of Belgium that in the course of the meeting the Prime Minister of Belgium pressed President Mugabe to end the occupation of the farms, to allow foreign journalists to return and to stop the intimidation of the Chief Justice. I am glad that I provided the advice. It was plainly useful in the exchanges.

Mr. Maude: The effect of those visits was to give Mugabe a propaganda coup, and the Foreign Secretary should admit it. If the Commonwealth ministerial action group is prevented from undertaking its mission in Zimbabwe, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, without hesitation, he will press for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? Will he urge the imposition of travel bans and criminal investigations of those of Mugabe's henchmen who sustain him in his murderous and repressive regime? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, yes, there is a case for quiet diplomacy, but that there is no case for supine inaction?

Mr. Cook: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the exchanges that have taken place so far, and I am quite clear that he wrote that last line before he heard them. I have retailed to the House exactly the action that we took, which provides clear, sharp contrast with the inaction of the Conservative Government during the Matabeleland massacres. In the event of President Mugabe persisting in his refusal to see the delegation from the Commonwealth ministerial action group, we will consider that with our colleagues. We are committed by the statement that we adopted last week to provide advice to the Heads of Government, and plainly that will have to be reflected in any advice that we offer.
On the issue of suspension from the Commonwealth, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully on that before repeating it. I believe that the most practical thing that we have done in Zimbabwe in the past year is the deployment of Commonwealth observers during last year's parliamentary elections. That was warmly welcomed by the democratic opposition, who said that it had curbed the worst excesses of the Mugabe regime. If we suspended Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, the net effect would be that we could not provide Commonwealth observers when President Mugabe comes up for re-election next year. I do not see how it would help anybody in Zimbabwe for us to be unable to provide observers, which would give Mugabe an even clearer run at re-election.

Anglo-American Defence Co-operation

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on US-British co-operation on defence. [154088]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The United States is Britain's closest ally. We enjoy excellent co-operation across a wide range of defence and security issues. NATO provides the cornerstone of our relationship. Co-operation between Britain and the US has continued after the recent change of US Administration, not least because a close working relationship is the best way of advancing our mutual interests and safeguarding our collective security.

Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that the Nice treaty refers to an autonomous capacity to take decisions and to independent intelligence and logistic capabilities? Will he now come clean and accept that the duplicate and parallel structures agreed at Nice can serve only to undermine the Atlantic alliance?

Mr. Vaz: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not come to last Monday night's debate on European security, in which I explained in great detail that the reason for the problem in understanding what has happened on European defence is the activities of Opposition Members, and especially of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I repeat that it is quite clear that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. That means working with NATO and consulting it at every single stage before a decision is taken.

Ms Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that is felt in a number of quarters about the US national missile defence proposals? That concern is felt not only by the Russians, the Chinese and our EU allies, but by local people who live close to the sites that would inevitably be involved—Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. Ministers rightly pride themselves on our very close relationship with the US, but will he assure the House that our anxiety to keep in with the Americans does not outweigh our ability to make a balanced judgment about the threat to world peace that this star wars proposal might cause? We do not want to allow the threat of an escalation in the arms race because we are frightened of falling out with the Americans.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has long held those views, but she will also know that America is our closest friend

and strongest ally. I refer her to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at Camp David on 23 February this year. The Americans have promised the fullest co-operation and consultation with the United Kingdom and all its allies. Clearly, there is a threat, because our closest ally and strongest friend, the United States, believes that there is one. Of course it is important that we prevent the escalation and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we will work with our allies to ensure that that threat is dealt with. I assure her that we will also work with them to ensure the fullest possible co-operation.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Having visited the United States recently and talked to many of the people there who know about the role played by Europe in the affections of the Government, what on earth leads the Minister to believe that their suspicion about weakening NATO arises from criticisms made by Opposition Members? Surely he has greater respect for the Americans whom he meets.

Mr. Vaz: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he feels strongly about these issues, but the facts are very clear. On 23 February this year, a joint communique was issued by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. It made it clear that the United States Government support the European security and defence policy. They are relaxed about that policy because its bedrock is NATO. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to know where the history of European security and defence began: the Maastricht treaty, which his right hon. Friend signed.
That is where the framework began. It continued at Petersberg, where Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hurd both signed up to a European security and defence policy. The policy has been accepted by both sides for many years.

Mr. John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend say whether there have been any discussions whatever on the national missile defence system? If such discussions take place in future, will he tell the Americans that the system will restart the cold war, and that many people here do not want to see our country turned into an unsinkable aircraft carrier?

Mr. Vaz: I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work very closely with our strongest friend, the United States of America. No proposals are currently on the table. If there were, I assure my hon. Friend that he and the House would be aware of them, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence would be explaining them to the House; but there are no proposals. We told President Bush on 23 February that we would continue to work closely with the United States, and that remains the position.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister not understand that the real American concern about the ESDP is that it is located outside NATO. It is autonomous—separate from NATO.
Does the Minister recollect what the Prime Minister said recently? He said that
if we don't get involved in European defence, it will happen without Britain. Then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy NATO will have control of it.
Was that not a pretty astonishing admission—and who does the Minister think the Prime Minister had in mind?

Mr. Vaz: What is astonishing is the right hon. Gentleman's complete lack of understanding of what has been going on over the past 10 years. I find that particularly astonishing, because it was the right hon. Gentleman himself—St. Francis of Maastricht—who signed the Maastricht treaty, so he knows all about European defence.
The United States of America fully supports European security and defence policy. That was agreed, and the communique was set out on 23 February. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot stomach is the fact that the Prime Minister and the President could issue the statement together.

Kosovo

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If he discussed matters relating to the UN administration of Kosovo when he last met his colleagues representing other member states of NATO. [154090]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed matters relating to Kosovo with his NATO counterparts at a North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting on 27 February. Hans Haekkerup, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo, briefed the North Atlantic Council on the work of UNMIK—the United Nations Mission in Kosovo—on 28 February.
We fully support Mr. Haekkerup's efforts to ensure the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1244. We welcome the priorities that he has set, namely the establishment of a legal framework for provisional institutions for Kosovo, law and order and economic reconstruction. We also welcome his efforts to establish regular dialogue with the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Macedonia at 3.30 pm.

Dr. Godman: Maintaining law and order in Kosovo is an immensely difficult task: everyone knows that. Am I right in thinking that KFOR is largely a European force, and a highly trained one at that? By contrast, the UN's international police force is composed of officers from 66 countries, many of whom, regrettably, are poorly trained. When did the Minister last raise at the UN the problems caused by this ill—equipped police force? There are some first—class officers in Kosovo, but many officers are not up to it.

Mr. Vaz: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. Having just visited the area, he knows the seriousness and the difficulties of the situation. We believe, however, that things are improving. We continue to raise these matters at the UN, and in every forum that we have at our

disposal, because we believe that to be the best way of ensuring that there is a lasting legal framework that people respect.
Law and order is clearly a crucial issue. My hon. Friend will note that the murder rate has gone down dramatically over the last year The British Government make a contribution to both forces and will continue to do so, but ultimately it is about building confidence between the communities. Unless and until we do that, we will never obtain a lasting settlement of the problems in the Balkans.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I have just returned from a visit to Kosovo with the Select Committee on Defence, and I was immensely impressed by the work that our troops are doing there; but can the Minister give us any guidance on the Government's exit strategy for our troops deployed in Kosovo?

Mr. Vaz: We will continue to be involved in trying to win the peace, as we have been throughout the past few years. The hon. Gentleman has just visited the area, and I would be keen to look at the report that he and his Committee will publish as a result of that visit. He knows that these are agonisingly difficult problems. The way to deal with the situation is, as I have just said, to build confidence between the communities. It would not be appropriate or right to talk about exit strategies. We are there to support the restoration of law and order, and to provide the necessary forces to ensure that there will be peace and security for the people of Kosovo.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I, too, was in Kosovo last week with the Defence Committee. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the British forces—the 1st Battalion, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the other forces—that are doing such a vital job there? Is he aware that, unfortunately, a lot of their time is at present devoted to defending the lives .and protecting the religious property of the very few—only 300—Serbs remaining in Pristina? Is it not vital, given that that conflict was fought to preserve a multi-ethnic Kosovo and Serbia, to send the message firmly and clearly to Albania, to the groups in the Presevo valley and in Macedonia lind to the Kosovar Albanians, that the international community will not tolerate any moves towards single ethnicity in the Balkans?

Mr. Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the British forces. I shall certainly pass them on to the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend's message is a powerful one, which we should heed, especially at these difficult times in tho Balkans. What has happened there is a tragedy. Our role is to do exactly as my hon. Friend has suggested: to ensure that the message of multi-ethnicity is one that every country in the Balkans understands. This is the best way in which the communities themselves can work together. We have a proud record in the Balkans. We will also maintain our proud record of trying to ensure that the communities work together, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

Pakistan

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on relations with Pakistan. [154091]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Relations between the UK and the people of Pakistan are warm and close. However, the people of Pakistan deserve better governance, and a democracy that can deliver stability, human development and international credibility. We continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a credible timetable for national and provincial elections by autumn 2002, in accordance with the ruling of Pakistan's supreme court.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister at least assure us that the Government will give their support and encouragement to the Government of Pakistan in coping with the enormous problem of refugees from Afghanistan? That problem has existed for years. Will the Minister also give some indication of roughly how many refugees there are in Pakistan at present, and whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing? Do the Government think that there might be a case for some kind of international effort to find a solution to one of the world's biggest refugee problems?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Pakistan has a good record of taking refugees from the war in Afghanistan. We believe that about 1.2 million refugees have entered Pakistan from Afghanistan. The issue has been discussed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and support is available to help to cope with the influx of refugees. Of course, the best solution to all those problems would be an end to the fighting in Afghanistan, and that, above all, is what we would urge.

Fiona Mactaggart: What action has the Minister taken to build on the opportunity created by India's ceasefire and Pakistan's policy of maximum restraint to make progress towards a just and peaceful future for Kashmir, based on respect for human rights and the will of the people of that region?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We very much welcome the reduction in conflict in Kashmir and we are using that opportunity both bilaterally and through the European Union and other international bodies to urge India and Pakistan to continue dialogue and to find a solution. A solution will be found only through such dialogue. We are also urging our Indian counterparts to allow greater access to. Kashmir, including for Amnesty International and the UN special rapporteurs, and I reiterate that it is important that human rights violations are investigated and that action is taken against the perpetrators. We welcome the two reports on incidents last year as a step towards such transparency. On all those fronts, we are urging dialogue and we are making it absolutely clear that nobody but India and Pakistan, through dialogue, can achieve a resolution to those problems.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Of course, the Minister will know that every friend of Pakistan in the House wants democratic elections to take place as ;speedily as possible, but one question bemuses most of us. Why is Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth and not allowed to

take part in any Commonwealth deliberations even though Zimbabwe is still a full member? Is not some double standard at work here?

Mr. Wilson: If I may make a fairly obvious point to the hon. Gentleman, he may have missed the fact that there was a military coup in Pakistan. Thereafter, the decision was taken by all the members of the Commonwealth.
Conservative Members seem to be under the misapprehension that Britain has some unilateral power to speak for the Commonwealth, but what is needed is consensus within the Commonwealth. These are two separate cases and Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth because of the military coup. We want not bogus analogies such as that drawn by the hon. Gentleman, but progress towards democratic elections in Pakistan, which would pave the way for a return to democratic government.

Illegal Drugs

Mr. Adrian Bailey: If he will make a statement on recent initiatives to tackle the international trade in illegal drugs. [154092]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. John Battle): The Government are at the forefront of international efforts to combat the illegal drugs trade. Our aim, as stated in the 10-year drugs strategy, is to halve the availability of those class A drugs that cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine.

Mr. Bailey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. of the heroin sold in this country comes from Afghanistan? Furthermore, will he continue to work with states in the region to put pressure on the Taliban to eradicate heroin trafficking? In particular, will he continue the policy of positive engagement with Iran?

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a serious interest in this crucial matter. I emphasise the fact that heroin and cocaine on the streets in Britain, be it in West Bromwich, West or in Leeds, West, usually come from either Colombia or Afghanistan. Our programme of counter—drugs assistance overseas is aimed at those key producer and transit countries. Through the multilateral agencies and the UN, we funded a drug crop survey in Afghanistan, and the results for 2001 suggest that opium poppy cultivation in the region is significantly lower than in 2000. That is encouraging. There is evidence that an edict by Mullah Omar in July 2000 banning cultivation is being enforced by the Taliban, but we are still worried that stockpiling and trafficking in opiates continue. We will maintain our high-level contacts to combat that activity until we tackle the problem of production.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Minister will be well aware that in many places that produce those drugs there is no alternative crop. For example, damage was done in Nepal by closing down drug cultivation without any alternative being provided, which enormously aided the arrival of the Maoist rebels.


Will he give us an assurance that he is working hard with the Department for International Development to find alternative ways of yielding an income to the peasants?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman pinpoints an important problem: if local campesinos—peasants—produce drugs, they get greater value for such a crop. Replacing it with alternatives is always difficult. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the House with the impression that nothing can be done, because an alternative crop strategy has worked to a large extent in Bolivia. We are working closely with the Colombian authorities to develop an alternative cultivation strategy in the Magdalena Medio region to ensure that campesinos do not depend on growing drugs for their livelihoods. We will work with the Department for International Development to ensure that those programmes are successful. Alternative economic development is the genuine answer.

Mr. Frank Roy: My hon. Friend may be aware that on Sunday thousands of people will take to the streets of Glasgow to join the Daily Record's march against drugs. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Daily Record on its initiative, and tell those who will take part in the demonstration that the war against drugs will be waged not only in Glasgow and every other city in the United Kingdom, but against the international sources of drug supply?

Mr. Battle: We welcome the demonstration and wish it every success. Sometimes, the impression is created that there are producer countries and consumer countries and that the problem is the latter, not the former. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that production and consumption occur in both. Even in Britain, forms of drugs that are almost artificial are being produced. We must tackle the problem internationally. That is the purpose of our programmes and why we join the UN, the EU and the G8 and take an active part in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We must knit together our response and fight the problem from every angle.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the limited success of alternative crop strategies, does the Minister know that heroin and cocaine are cheaper on the streets of the United Kingdom now than in 1995? In his discussions with the Governments of drug-producing countries, will he ask them to redouble their efforts? Will he commend the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which does so much good work in the United Kingdom and overseas in disseminating information and intelligence? That is the key to the problem.

Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is vital in discovering and analysing what is happening.
We know that the price of heroin and cocaine is falling in our neighbourhoods. That is part of a global drugs economy, which is linked to huge business. It is said that the drugs trade is now worth the value of the oil and gas industry, the car industry and the steel industry combined.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Okinawa summit last July that we would convene a conference on the global drugs economy to tackle the underpinning market factor in the illegal drugs racket.

It will take place in June, and we hope that it will provide some genuine detailed analysis of the macro and micro markets so that we can tackle them properly.

Ministerial Visits (Belgrade)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Which members of the Government have visited Belgrade since October 2000. [1540931

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade visited Belgrade on 8 and 9 November. A visit by the Foreign Office is a high priority. The visit to Belgrade by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) participated, was also a success. Federal Foreign Minister Svilanovic was in London on 27 and 28 February.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister accept that that reply is unsatisfactory? He is responsible for the Balkan region but he has not visited it. He has not been to Belgrade, Pristina, Podgorica or Zagreb. Either there is a shortage of Foreign Ministers or the priorities are wrong. When is he going?

Mr. Vaz: With such an invitation, I should be on the plane tomorrow with my right hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that Foreign Office Ministers are fully engaged in bilateral visits. He may shake his head, but a few weeks ago he chided another colleague about a visit to Poland. We must set priorities, and we have done that. Several Foreign Ministers have visited London. We organised a Balkans taskforce conference last year and several other Foreign Ministers attended it. I know that my hon. Friend is cross. but I assure him that the Balkans are a high priority, ;and I hope to give him some welcome news in the not too distant future.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier, it is not so very many weeks since the man whom many regard as a dictator, a tyrant and a murderer was invited to Belgium and France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. 9."] The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he offered the Belgian and French—

Hon. Members: No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): If it is not too late, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions 9, 13 and 14 together.

President Mugabe

Mr. Roger Gale: What plans he has to meet President Mugabe; and if he will make a statement. [1540951

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans he has to meet Morgan Tsvangerai to discuss the present situation in Zimbabwe. [154099]

Mr. John Wilkinson: What contact he has had with the Governm4mts of Belgium and France and with the Commission of the European Union about the recent visit of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe to Brussels and Paris. [154100]

Mr. Cook: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier.

Mr. Gale: Having waited for that answer, I do not think that it was terribly wrong of me to proceed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when I called him I expected him to call out the number of the question on the Order Paper, and he should have done so. I therefore hope that his supplementary will be very brief.

Mr. Gale: It is not so very long since a man whom many people regard as a dictator and a tyrant was invited to Belgium and France. The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he gave the French and the Belgians, and that is welcome. However, will he say whether at any time he indicated to either of our European allies—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We have to provide the opposition as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gale: Has the Foreign Secretary indicated to either of our European allies that this man ;should be treated as the pariah that he is, and not given the red carpet treatment that he received?

Mr. Cook: I have repeatedly been urged in this House to use all possible channels of communication with President Mugabe to increase the pressure on him to improve the observance of human rights within Zimbabwe. We therefore communicated to Belgium and France that if they were to meet President Mugabe, it was important that they pressed him on human rights. As I have already spoken about the Belgian meeting, perhaps I can add, for completeness, that we understand that when President Chirac met President Mugabe, he insisted that there should be dialogue with the commercial farmers and respect for the rule of law, that the violence should be curbed and that President Mugabe should halt the expulsion of foreign journalists. I welcome that message to President Mugabe.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what so many people in this country, myself included, find so offensive is the contrast between the Labour party's view on South Africa, when we were treated to frenetic indignation the whole time, and the Government's total lack of urgency as Zimbabwe, a once prosperous country, declines into penury, state-sponsored murder and chaos? Surely the Foreign Secretary is utterly inept to withdraw the one lever that the British Government had over the Government of Zimbabwe—the

military component operating out of Harare. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now cancel that decision so that at least he would do something that the Opposition in Zimbabwe would like the British Government to do?

Mr. Cook: As a matter of fact, for the sake of the completeness of the record, I was urged to withdraw that in April of last year by Conservative Front Benchers. It is a bit rich to do it and then to be condemned.
As for the contrast with southern Africa, let me make it quite clear that no Labour Member resiles from one single word of criticism for apartheid. It is a bit rich for the party that opposed Commonwealth sanctions against apartheid now to demand more sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Did the European Commissioner and the leading figures of two important European Union member countries remind the President of Zimbabwe that there are in his country some 20,000 European Union citizens who hold British passports and who should be the common concern of our European Union partners and of Her Majesty's Government? Have not the Foreign Secretary and our European partners betrayed them in not making it clear that any question of taking away their dual nationality, dispossessing them of their farms and perhaps ejecting them from the country is against every tenet of human rights and decent international behaviour?

Mr. Cook: Both the European figures—the Prime Minister of Belgium and the President of France—raised with President Mugabe the illegal and brutal occupation of the farmlands, and urged the use of dialogue to resolve that and bring it to an end.
A number of countries do not recognise dual nationality, but I take the opportunity with which the hon. Gentleman has presented me to deplore the threatening language that has been used against those commercial farmers in Zimbabwe who may have another nationality. They provide the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. They have made their lives in Zimbabwe and contributed to the present economic strength of the agricultural sector there, which is being undermined. If the Government of Zimbabwe continue to take action of a vindictive character, not only those British nationals but all the people of Zimbabwe will suffer because of the disastrous impact on the economy.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that on every possible occasion the British Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have made it clear to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe that this Government are extremely concerned at the erosion of democracy and the independent judicial system in that country? Is it not also a fact that within about 12 months the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to elect a President? They may well choose to change President on that occasion.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's final point is important. It is important for all of us to use every channel to ensure that when that chance comes, the people of Zimbabwe have the opportunity of a free and fair election in which they can exercise their vote without any threat of intimidation. My hon. Friend is right. We have repeatedly


condemned what is happening in Zimbabwe. We have done so within the Commonwealth. the European Union and the United Nations. If the Opposition can come up with anywhere else that we have not done so, I will be happy to do so.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Commonwealth takes action against Mugabe if the present situation continues? Would he like to remind us about any protestations or official representations from previous British Governments at the time of the Matabeleland massacres in 1982–84?

Mr. Cook: I have already made it clear to the House that we cannot discover any representations on the Matabeleland massacres. There was certainly no attempt to use the Commonwealth. We raised the situation in Zimbabwe with the Commonwealth last week. We were successful in securing unanimous agreement on the concerns, in particular the intimidation of the judiciary and the media. I am glad that there is agreement to send colleagues to Harare to express those concerns directly and to hear what answers there may be from the Zimbabwean Government. We will continue to press that Government to recognise that, as a member of the Commonwealth, they have a duty to receive the delegation from the Commonwealth.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) introduced the question of consistency. Does my right hon. Friend recall, during the bloodthirsty, murderous and repressive regime in Chile under self—styled Senator Pinochet, much opposition and condemnation from the then British Government, who are now Her Majesty's Opposition? How consistent does he believe that is with their quickness to condemn what is happening in Zimbabwe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Rather than issue an all-party declaration about what the right hon. Gentleman would like to happen in Zimbabwe, would he do something practical and invite the Government of South Africa—probably the only Government to whom the Zimbabwean Government will pay any attention at the moment—to apply pressure to the President of Zimbabwe to cease his activities with regard to the judiciary, the press and the rule of law? Surely that is the most practical and effective thing to do, and he could do it now.

Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point about the influence of the countries of the region on Zimbabwe. We have had regular dialogue with them ever since the Cairo European Union summit in the spring of last year. We will continue to raise the matter with them. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Mozambique about our concerns about Zimbabwe and what the countries of the region can do to help. South Africa is by far the largest country in the region—it is by far the largest economy. It has a lead role in the region, which places certain responsibilities on it.

International Criminal Court

Caroline Flint: When he expects the UK to seek ratification of the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. [154096]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. John Battle): The UK will ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. The International Criminal Court Bill is before the House and we hope that it will receive strong support on all sides. Our intention is to be among the first 60 states to ratify.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Certainly, organisations and individuals in my constituency who have written to me on the issue will welcome the ratification of that important measure. That goes for groups such as Amnesty International and other human rights bodies that submitted their opinions on the draft Bill, followed by detailed scrutiny in the other place. Will my hon. Friend reassure me of the continued support of all parties in the House for a speedy resolution and ratification of the Bill, and that the all-party support still holds firm?

Mr. Battle: The draft Bill was published last August; there were about 45 submissions giving detailed comments—mainly positive and supportive—from a range of non-governmental and professional organisations, lawyers, academics and interested parliamentarians. It will be a historic Bill, which I hope all parties in the House will continue to support That will send a signal to the world's tyrants that there is a clear consensus in Britain and in the international community that we are united in that determination to end impunity, because justice, wherever possible, is obviously the best foundation for long-term peace.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: For the record, both sides of the House support the aims of the International Criminal Court Bill to bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity. However, the current Bill introduced by the Government has some fundamental flaws, which our military commanders have warned could lead to British troops being prosecuted for war crimes and being prevented from carrying out peacekeeping tasks . The French have protected their armed services through an opt-out. Will the Minister undertake to accept the Conservative amendments to the Bill tabled in another place that would safeguard our armed forces, or do our soldiers, sailors and airmen get less protection than the French?

Mr. Battle: It must be jitters before the election—the hon. Lady is changing her position. On two occasions, she pressed us to get on with the measure: in July 1988—[HON. MEMBERS: " 1988?"] —she said she welcomed the Bill; in October 1999, I think that she said she would help Ministers in any way that she could. It does not sound like that now.
The amendments tabled by Lord Lamont in the other place did not receive support. I notice that he opposes not only the International Criminal Court but the Yugoslav tribunal and other forms of international justice. I hope that is not the case for current Opposition Front Benchers;


I hope that they will stick by their original commitment. The Bill is vital to international justice—I hope that they still support it.

Middle East

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east. [154097]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Following a successful European Union Troika visit to the region, Heads of State and Government discussed the situation in the middle east at the European Council in Stockholm on 23 March. The Council reaffirmed the Union's determination to contribute to peace, stability and future prosperity in the middle east. To that end, it requested the EU High Representative Javier Solana to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role in promoting the resumption of the peace process.
Although there has been an overall reduction in the level of violence in the past two weeks—notwithstanding the events of the past 24 hours—we remain deeply concerned at the continuing tensions and instability. We urge both parties to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Palestinian terrorism—such as the mortar attack from a Palestinian police station in Gaza last week, the two bombs in Jerusalem today or the terribly tragic shooting of a 10-month-old Israeli baby girl yesterday—can no longer simply be attributed to Palestinian rejectionist groups, but is also the responsibility of the Palestine National Authority? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that Mr. Arafat does whatever he can to try to stop that terrorism and violence from the Palestinians and so allow the peace process to be resumed?

Mr. Wilson: We condemn such acts from whichever source they come. The problem is that if there is no atmosphere of dialogue—an atmosphere that appears to be leading to a just outcome to all the problems—it makes room for extremist elements to preach a doctrine of violence and to commit the acts to which my hon. Friend refers. Everything that we do and say is directed towards a resumption of the peace process with one aim—getting people around a table to discuss a solution, taking up where discussions were leading before the Israeli elections, and feeding into the process, bilaterally, through the European Union, in every way possible. Taking out isolated acts of terrorism and condemning them is perfectly legitimate, but it does not contribute to the wider solution. We condemn all violenee. We must have dialogue if there is to be peace.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: What are the objectives of the Government's policy towards Iran?

Mr. Wilson: We are anxious to encourage reform within Iran. We are anxious to develop our relations, and to that end the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently made the first high-level visit to Iran in, I think, 20 years.

We shall take that process forward. Where there is progress towards democratic standards we will encourage that, and that is true in Iran.

Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that a senior Iraqi official has recently been in the UK, that he is a close friend of Saddam Hussein, that he has been given a multiple entry visa by our embassy in Jordan and that he is closely connected with an institute in Iraq that is involved in chemical and biological components? Why was he given a visa when visitors who wished to come here from Iraq and Syria—members of the Iraqi opposition—were refused visas this weekend? Has there been a change of policy on Iraq?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that this is really the forum in which to second-guess the visa process. However, I would say that the gentleman in question was admitted as the president of the Council of Technical Colleges in Iraq. He was not judged to be a senior figure in the Iraqi regime. He came here to access educational materials and, as my hon. Friend and the House well know, the policy of sanctions against Iraq is not directed against educational materials or humanitarian goods. In that spirit, it was consistent to grant the visa to that gentleman.

Sir Sydney Chapman: With reference to my question 33, and echoing the words of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the Minister agree that the overriding priority at the moment, given the extreme fragility of the middle east peace initiative, must be to encourage an end to violence and a resumption of the dialogue and negotiations? Given that the European Union countries have presented the Palestinian authorities with a very favourable economic package, does the Minister agree that he and his counterparts in Europe must use all the influence that they have at this time to encourage Yasser Arafat to meet those twin overriding objectives?

Mr. Wilson: There is a significant role for the European Union—and I think that everyone in the middle east believes that there is a role for the European Union in this process. Therefore, I am very pleased at the visit by the EU High Representative to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role. That step was strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm at the weekend.
What the hon. Gentleman says is correct. There is a role for the EU and I am sure that, in the discussions with Yasser Arafat and other representatives of the Palestinians, the points that the hon. Gentleman made can be pursued.

Nice Treaty

Mr. Jim Cunningham: When he plans to take steps to enable the UK to ratify the treaty of Nice. [154098]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Robin Cook): Last week's Command Paper contains the text of the treaty of Nice. We will bring the Bill necessary to ratify the treaty before the House as soon as possible.
The treaty of Nice increases Britain's vote in the European Union, removes the veto of other countries on British priorities such as tougher budget control, and provides the institutional reforms essential for enlargement. It is in Britain's interest to ratify as soon as possible.

Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress that has been made towards enlargement can certainly lead to the avoidance of the mistakes of the last century, particularly those mistakes that led to wars, and does he agree that the Opposition have not necessarily learned the lessons of the last century? Will my hon. Friend elaborate on the early warning system and human rights?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct on his last point. There is provision for an early warning system that would enable the European Union to intervene in a helpful way if there were any departure from human rights, but the departure has to be serious and persistent before it is triggered. I agree absolutely with his other remarks. A dozen or more countries are now seeking to join the European Union. One day they will be in the Council Chamber as full members. It is in Britain's interest that they remember us as friends of their applications and as supporters of the treaty of Nice.
I know from talking to the Governments of those countries that they are mystified that the Opposition continue to oppose the treaty of Nice. I have written several times in the past three months to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), asking him to say exactly what he believes needs to be renegotiated; he has never replied. There is just enough time for him to reply this afternoon, or to admit that he is not prepared to defend the Conservative party's policy because he knows that it has no credibility.

Mr. Richard Spring: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the failure at Nice to halt the continuing slide to political integration will damage successful enlargement? In that vein, the Belgian presidency is seeking tax harmonisation on all savings, on personal and company taxation and on energy, labour and capital. Why is he not fighting to reform the one policy that will really jeopardise enlargement—the common agricultural policy, where British leadership is so pathetically absent?

Mr. Cook: There is not a single Government among the candidate nations who would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty of Nice does not further enlargement. I ask him to reflect on the fact that if someone is the only one who holds a certain opinion, it is just possible that that person is wrong. The hon. Gentleman is probably wise to stick to his written text, rather than to try to answer my question, but the House will have noticed that he and the right hon. Member for Horsham cannot tell us what must be renegotiated in the treaty of Nice. If they cannot tell us, they might as well admit that their policy is wrong and lacking in credibility and that they have no intention of carrying it out.

Mr. Speaker: We shall deal with question 24. I call Mr. Ben Bradshaw.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [154111]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): On Sunday, the army of Macedonia launched an operation to retake the hills above Tetevo. The operation appears to have been a success and the armed extremists have abandoned their positions.
I spoke to President Trajkovski on Sunday morning, when I urged on him the importance of keeping the operation proportionate to the threat and restrained from action that could cause civilian casualties. I am pleased to report that, on the information currently available to us, there have been no civilian deaths.
I spoke this morning to Javier Solana in Skopje. We both agreed that the important priority now for the Government of Macedonia is to follow up the military action by taking the political initiative to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Albanian minority. Yesterday, the Greek Foreign Minister and I held a joint conversation with the Foreign Minister of Macedonia, in which we discussed the need for progress on such issues as local government reform and the new Albanian university in Tetevo. Macedonia must not allow the terrorists to succeed in destroying its multi-ethnic society.
In the meantime. Britain will continue to take every practical measure to improve the situation on the ground. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that Britain would provide the major part of a new battle group within KFOR of 400 troops to help secure part of the Kosovo border with Macedonia. That commitment by Britain has been well received in Macedonia.
Over the past two years, we have turned the tide against the nationalists who took to violence in pursuit of a Greater Serbia or a Greater Croatia. We must now be equally firm against the extremists who are using terror in pursuit of a Greater Albania. The period in which borders in the Balkans were redrawn in blood is over and will not be allowed to return.

Mr. Bradshaw: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and warmly welcome the constructive role being played by Britain in securing the Macedonia-Kosovo border, but will he make it absolutely plain to all the protagonists in the region that nationalism and attempts to redraw borders will not be tolerated by the international community? Will he do all that he can, working with his partners, to ensure that there is a just and peaceful settlement in Macedonia?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When the European Council met in Stockholm, it received President Trajkovski, who addressed us. In our conclusion in the declaration at the end of that meeting, the European Union affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty of Macedonia and to its territorial integrity. We want the countries of the Balkans to continue on their path towards greater association and integration with the European Union, but that can be done only under the principles of


the European Union, which involve respect for borders and an acceptance that borders can never be changed by force.

Mr. Francis Maude: We welcome the decision to send an extra British contingent to the frontier. British troops are particularly well suited and well trained for such work, and it is essential that the border between Kosovo and Macedonia should be properly sealed to prevent terrorists from coming across. There must be resolute support for the Government of Macedonia, who are democratic, legitimate, include Albanian parties and have endeavoured to create a genuinely multi-ethnic society.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should also be very clear that there can be no question of a Greater Kosovo or a Greater Albania? As he has just suggested, moving the borders would risk the whole structure of the western Balkans unravelling. However, should we not also be clear that there can be no question of Kosovo being denied the right of eventual self-determination? What is the Government's position on the final status of Kosovo?
Of course, in return for a commitment to self-determination, the Kosovar Albanian leadership must do everything in its power to quell the terrorist activities of Albanian terrorists in Macedonia, but does the Foreign Secretary not agree that there is a connection between vacillation over Kosovo's long-term status and the recent terrorist activity? There has been a lamentable lack of clarity and long-term vision, and mixed messages from the west have contributed to today's crisis.
When did the Macedonian Government approach the British Government about the lack of border control between Macedonia and Kosovo? What representations did the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence make to their NATO counterparts? Why was there not earlier decisive action to step up the border controls? Did not the vacillation over the buffer zones encourage the terrorists to believe that the west was not serious about supporting the Macedonian Government?
Is not the key lesson that political leaders have to stay on the case after the television cameras have moved away? After the bombing in Kosovo was over and the victory laps were completed, there vas still a problem to be dealt with. Five years after the Dayton peace accord was signed, Bosnia-Herzegovina bears little resemblance to what Dayton envisaged. There are two states, two Governments, three armies and three police forces there. Is it surprising that Macedonian Albanians believe that the door to self-government is open when the west has vacillated over requiring the leaders of Republika Srpska to conform to Dayton?
The message from the west should be utterly unequivocal: existing borders should be preserved; peace accords should be honoured and the west will not accept anything less. We should say what we mean, without vacillation or equivocation, and it should be understood that we mean what we say.

Mr. Cook: I welcome the opening two sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and will convey to KFOR and the British troops his support for, and confidence in, their deployment to the border.
There are two vast contradictions in what the right hon. Gentleman just said. The first is that it is a bit rich for the Conservative spokesman to complain of vacillation when, for years in Bosnia, the Conservative Government appeased Milosevic and did not take resolute action.

Mr. Maude: You agreed with the policy.

Mr. Cook: I did not agree with the policy; I happen to remember because I was the Opposition spokesman at the time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) must allow the Foreign Secretary to reply.

Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the right hon. Gentleman an instruction.

Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast, it is the contrast between the vigorous and resolute action that we took in Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing and the tolerance, under a Conservative Government, of ethnic cleansing for years in Bosnia.
On support for the Macedonia Government, I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. The Government of Macedonia are under pressure at present and they require our solidarity and support. That is why at Stockholm and since we have sent messages of solidarity and support to them. The last message that the Government of Macedonia want to hear at present is the call for the independence of Kosovo that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. If he really believes that that is welcome in Skopje, he has no comprehension whatever of Balkan politics.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the rules of engagement under which British troops could open fire?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raised that question yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and asked him to place the document in the Library. The rules of engagement is a military document, and it is not customary to make it public. It is not helpful to British troops for others to know the point at which they will open fire and, therefore, the point up to which they can go before fire is opened. It is very much in the interests of British troops that we preserve the discretion of that document.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my support to the Government in the policy outlined by the Foreign Secretary? In circumstances where all the gains so painfully achieved in the Balkans over the past 10 years have been put at risk, will he continue to impress on the Macedonian Government the need for their forces to exercise restraint and self-discipline, and not to fall into the pattern of revenge that we have so often seen in the Balkans during those 10 years?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say to the Macedonian Government that having apparently won a military victory, now is the time for them, from that position of strength, to launch a political initiative designed to ensure the recognition, both in theory and in practice, of the human rights of all Macedonian citizens? Finally, will he remind the Macedonian Government that those who aspire to membership of the European Union have to satisfy the EU that they have achieved the highest standards of recognition of human rights before their membership application stands any chance of success?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a number of valid points. I entirely agree with him on the importance of the Macedonian army remaining disciplined, focused and proportionate in its response. I echo the welcome given by Lord Robertson in Skopje late last night for the fact that the recent action was firm and restrained. We should remember that 40 per cent. of the Macedonian army is Albanian.
I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation about the need now for a move from a position of strength. I can well understand the reluctance to take a political initiative if it is seen as a concession to terrorists, but after the success of this weekend's action and the retreat of the terrorists, the Macedonian Government can now take such steps from a position of strength and should do so. The terrorists want to undermine multi-ethnic Macedonia; we must make sure that they are defeated and that we defeat also their poisonous lie that Albanian and Slav cannot live together in the same country in peace.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It is surely right and in our national interest to support the democratic Government of Macedonia, who have been a beacon in a highly difficult region. As my right hon. Friend said, there is the military track and the political track. What particular help is he prepared to give the Macedonian Government in addressing the legitimate grievances of the Albanian minority? What does he have in mind? Would it not be best if a Foreign Office Minister took our clear message to the Macedonian Government, who are now, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, in a position of strength?

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that we are already heavily engaged in helping the Macedonian Government in practical ways. The United Kingdom has committed £500,000 to help to set up the new Albanian university in Tetevo, which should open for business this coming autumn. Obviously, we will look sympathetically at other projects.
I was in touch only yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Macedonia. I met him last Friday, and I will continue to keep in close contact with him. The next major appointment will be in two weeks, when he and other representatives of the Government will come to Brussels to sign the stabilisation agreement with the European Union. We have invited the members of the Government to bring with them Albanian representatives from the Parliament and the Government to demonstrate our support for the multi-ethnic character of Macedonia.

Sir David Madel: What help will the British Government give the Macedonian

Government in relation to the population census in that country, which is planned for next month? Will American troops be playing a greater role in policing the Kosovo-Macedonia border?

Mr. Cook: Much of the border is in the American sector. The Americans are already involved in policing that border and our troops will work closely with the local US commander when they get there. We discussed the census at Stockholm and I put it to the Commission that we should be willing to provide European Union observers because the Albanian community is keen for it to have an international legitimacy.

Mr. Ernie Ross: May I support everything that my right hon. Friend said today and in Stockholm? I also agree with his condemnation of the demand by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that we should show some support for the independence of Kosovo. It is a fragile state in which a small group of extremists on the border is trying to incite discontent among the minority population in Macedonia. The last thing they need to hear is that Members of this House have been talking about independence. There is a long way to go in Kosovo. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not know that his party involved others in helping to build a democracy there.

Mr. Cook: It is very important that no one speaks as if the extremists who have carried out the insurgency in Macedonia have the backing of the wider Albanian community. Their action has been condemned by the Albanian political leaders in Macedonia, the Kosovo leaders in Pristina and the Albanian Government. They represent themselves, not the wider community.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's comments on democracy in the region. We are pushing for the United Nations to hold Kosovo-wide elections to a constituent Assembly later this year. I hope that those will proceed and that we will be able to embark on a dialogue with legitimate elected leaders who have behind them the authority of the ballot box, not that of the bullet. It is wrong for any western politician to prejudge that dialogue.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I express the hope that the Foreign Secretary has studied the characteristically pungent remarks of David Lloyd George about the difficulty of influencing events in Macedonia and the experiences of the British Salonika expedition? Does he agree that the most cursory glance at the map shows that it would require tens of thousands of troops to close the Macedonian frontier to the countries that surround it? Will he also recognise that his remarks about the need to make further concessions to the Albanian minority in Macedonia will be badly received by the majority in that country who remember that almost identical language prefaced the British Government's decision to pursue policies that have replaced Serb rule with Albanian rule in Kosovo?

Mr. Cook: I have to be candid and confess that I have not had time in the past week to consult David Lloyd George on the situation in Macedonia. I have been trying to address the problems of this century, not those of a century ago. However, I rebut what the hon. Gentleman said. We should


not regard a modern pluralist democracy in Macedonia as a concession. Indeed, better and stronger local government would benefit the people of both communities in that country.

Mr. Bruce George: Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to establish what resources, there are in both Departments to fly out as many Conservative Members as possible to the Balkans to enhance their understanding of the area? Perhaps on that visit, they could discover what the consequences of a referendum for self-determination—independence—would be for the region. If we think that we have had problems up to now, I suspect that independence for Kosovo in the foreseeable future would have catastrophic results.
The Defence Committee visited the units that are being sent to police part of the border. Their professionalism and commitment are outstanding. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most hon. Members, at least on the Labour Benches and, I hope. on the Conservative Benches, realise that the insertion of British troops to prevent people travelling from Kosovo to cause mischief in Macedonia is helpful, not destructive, to security in that troubled part of the world?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely endorse the last part of my right hon. Friend's observations. One of the strengths that our trained and equipped forces will bring to the border is a capacity for operating at night, which is the time when the terrorists try to move.
I am strongly in favour of an educational expedition of the sort that my right hon. Friend outlined. However, in my many conversations with Macedonian Ministers over the past five days, none of them has put in a plea that we should send them more Tory MPs.

Paddy Ashdown: Is it not as well to recognise that while it is a good thing that British forces should be helping to "seal" the Schar Planina range and the border between Kosovo and Albania, in reality that will be impossible? We have put 20,000 troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years, but we could not stop bombs being let off in London. We are talking of a border that is extremely difficult to police. We must do our best, but we should not promise that we can stop exfiltration of terrorism from Kosovo, not least because even if we could do a good job on that border, it would still be possible to pass through the Albanian border between the south of Kosovo and Lake Ochrid, which is already happening.
Is it not a tragic paradox that no one throughout the history of the Macedonian state has done more to address the issue of Albanian minority rights than the Government of President Trajkovski? It would be of no difficulty to him to use what is, in my view, probably a fairly limited military victory as a position of strength from which to bargain to return to his policy of addressing Albanian rights, and therefore to turn from the gun to the political plain.

Mr. Cook: First, may I correct the right hon. Gentleman? We do not use the term "seal" the border for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated. We can do much more to secure the border, but we are not pretending that in a difficult terrain we shall be 100 per cent. effective. However, that does not undermine

the importance of doing what we can to prevent movements, as we have already, and we can do more. For instance, we can prevent the movement of heavy weaponry—that is certainly a feasible objective. We will enhance liaison with the Macedonian military intelligence to ensure that we co-operate as partners.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about the Government of President Trajkovski. In my intervention at Stockholm, I said that one of the reasons for his having our support is the steps that he has taken towards providing a stable and secure multi-ethnic society in Macedonia. The support of Europe will continue to be strong so long as he continues in that direction.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I was in Kosovo last week, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. I saw what was happening. I find it difficult to control my anger having heard the irresponsible utterances of the Opposition spokesman, who seeks to be in a Conservative Government. May I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the matters for which the Foreign Secretary has responsibility.

Mr. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend—the person who is in charge of the Foreign Office—that to give any sympathy to a campaign for independence in Kosovo is the quickest way to inflame another Balkan war. Those who give such sympathy are acting irresponsibly and threatening the lives of British soldiers who are keeping the peace. I hope that my right hon. Friend will condemn that approach, because I have heard support for terrorism in Kosovo from the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks from the experience of his visit. I have already condemned what I believe to be an unhelpful and irresponsible call for independence in Kosovo, but I am happy to do so again. My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that there are several thousand British troops in Kosovo who have to live with the consequences.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in facing the incredibly difficult ethnic mix, the tensions and the prospective explosive situation in the Balkans, an element that has not been mentioned is the amazingly high level of criminality? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be appropriate for the Government to do all that they can to assist all local Governments to have available to them the necessary mechanisms of law and order? There is a mix between ethnic nationalism and banditry and crime of every sort.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and important point. A high priority of our policy on Kosovo and the wider region is to work with our European partners to tackle the organised crime that threatens to disfigure the region. That is why, in the early days after the liberation of Kosovo, we sent in a police contingent to look particularly at criminal investigation. We shall continue to do all that we can to make sure that we tackle


crime. The tragedy is that organised crime in the region and the drugs trade have a close overlap with the terrorist extremists whom we have seen in action in the past week.

Mr. John Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, especially his emphasis on seeking long-term stability in the region once we have dealt with the conflict in Macedonia. Will he express his view on the pending referendum in Montenegro, the fact that the Albanian minority will almost certainly vote for independence—but for the wrong reason—and the impact that that will have on the conflict in Macedonia? Does he agree that the secret is not the ridiculous suggestion from the Opposition, but the creation anchors of stability in Serbia and Albania, using Croatia as a model?

Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly urged on President Djukanovic the importance of any new constitutional arrangement between Montenegro and Serbia being achieved by mutual agreement, dialogue and negotiation. We have also stressed that a narrow majority in a referendum for independence is not what is required for such a major constitutional change; that would require a settled consensus of the population.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Foreign Secretary is much better informed than the British public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a very wise man. Does he feel that the public may be a bit confused? Previously, the British Government went to war on behalf of Albanian self-determination in Kosovo-[Interruption.] No, it is true. Now, when another group of Albanians, admittedly rather nastier than the other lot, want to go to war for their own self-determination, they are condemned. Are the Government going to have a consistent policy and are they going to stand up for self-determination, wherever it occurs.

Mr. Cook: I know that Conservative Members are given to collective amnesia about what happened before 1997, but that is a remarkable piece of amnesia about something that happened only two years ago. We did not go to war on self-determination. We went into the conflict in Kosovo to halt a major humanitarian catastrophe, triggered by the systematic and brutal ethnic cleansing by President Milosevic. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who did not support us at the time, still argues about whether we were right to do so.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon. Our forces, as well as our Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ministry of Defence police officers, are doing a marvellous job in Kosovo. However, is there any truth in the claim in The Scotsman this morning that
around 20 counter-insurgency specialists from the Royal Marines of the Arbroath-based 45 Commando will be sent to Macedonia"?
If there is, is the specialists' function to train units of the Macedonian army? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence give an assurance that they will be adequately equipped and have sufficient backing to do the job?

Mr. Cook: It is the case that we have recently dispatched a 10-officer recce team to Macedonia to advise us on how we can best support the army of Macedonia

by providing advice, training and equipment. It has just submitted a report, which we are considering. We are not currently contemplating the dispatch of any further team, but if a case was made for a way in which we could be of assistance, it would be responsible of us to respond to that. Equally importantly, we should be responsible for safeguarding the security and safety of any troops whom we send.

Mr. John Redwood: As political initiative and diplomacy will be required to resolve the conflict, the number of troops is understandably small and ambitions for them are limited. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us who is in charge? Is it NATO, the European Union or the British Government?

Mr. Cook: The commander of KFOR is appointed by NATO and accountable to NATO. I do wish that, now and again, the right hon. Gentleman would address a serious issue under discussion, rather than trying to score his petty European points.

Jane Griffiths: I was in Kosovo in January this year. One of the many things that I learned there was that the main food supplies, as well as aid and other goods, come into Kosovo through Macedonia. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those routes will remain open or, if that cannot be guaranteed, that contingency plans are in place to ensure food supplies?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the strategic routes. It follows from that that there would be great difficulty in providing any alternative route in. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we support the Government of Macedonia—not just because they are democratic and multi-ethnic, but because they have been of great support to KFOR in Kosovo. We have a debt of honour to them, and we should discharge it by making sure that we give Macedonia all the help that we can.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On the same visit under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, many of us were surprised to learn that the Americans were not policing their own border. We were told that they did not have the type of troops that would normally go out on their own and be exposed in that way. Following America's announcement that it is taking troops out of its sector, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why we are sending British troops in? Is it because only British troops are willing to put their lives at risk? Are not some of the problems of overstretch of our forces caused by the fact that whenever there is a difficult issue to be dealt with, that must be done by British troops, rather than by our allies?

Mr. Cook: On overstretch, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 300 troops that we are supplying for the border are from our present contingent to KFOR. They are not coming from any additional deployment to KFOR, although we have not ruled that out, should it be required by the commanders on the ground. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the position, broadly, in KFOR would be much easier if other nations showed the same flexibility as we did and were also willing to accept orders from


ComFOR when he requires help in particular areas. Such a step by others would greatly enhance the capability, the achievements and the effectiveness of KFOR.

Mr. David Heath: Does not the international community owe a great debt to Macedonia? Would it not send a valuable signal to the Government in Macedonia, who are trying to deal with infiltration through a border that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) described as very permeable, if we considered re-activating UNPREDEP, perhaps with a different mandate and perhaps extending its operation around Tetevo and Gostivar, and showing that we are committed to the integrity of the Macedonian border?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about our debt to Macedonia. I have already discussed that. At present, there is no active proposal in the United Nations for a restoration of UNPREDEP. That was ended following the Chinese veto after Macedonia recognised Taiwan, and there would be internal United Nations problems in restoring it. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can to seal our

side of the border, and we are working with the Macedonian military to make sure that it can secure its side of the border.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary will remember the warnings that he received in 1999 that, as a product of the Government's diplomatic and military strategy, NATO and British forces would in the end be involved in opposing an ethnic Albanian insurgency. Is that what has happened?

Mr. Cook: At present we are making sure that the majority of the Albanian community in Kosovo can have the peaceful life that those people want, in their own society, free from the shadow of the terrorist, and free from the shadow of President Milosevic and the thugs with whom he was terrorising Kosovo two years ago. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that Macedonia would be any more stable now if we had allowed Macedonia to continue to be the host to half a million refugees from Kosovo, he has no grasp of reality. Macedonia is much more stable now than if we had not taken the action that we took to enable those people to go back to Kosovo.

Foot and Mouth

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about foot and mouth disease. I want to update hon. Members both on the latest position on the disease outbreak and on the range of actions that the Government have been taking since I last informed the House on Wednesday 21 March. I then want to outline what we know so far about the causes and spread of the outbreak, and to announce the measures that we propose to take as a result.
At 1 pm today, there had been 668 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Forty-two cases were confirmed yesterday. Out of a total UK livestock population of more than 55 million, 697,500 animals have now been authorised for slaughter and 423,000 have already been slaughtered. Outside the United Kingdom, there is one case in the Republic of Ireland, and there are two cases in France and five cases in Holland.
I made public last week the epidemiological studies that I have received on the likely cause of the disease. They differed in their detail, but they were all clear that this is an unprecedented outbreak that has not yet reached its peak.
Our strategy remains focused on three key priorities. All animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farms are to be culled within 24 hours of the infection report. All animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on contiguous farms are then to be culled within 48 hours. We are concentrating our efforts in northern Cumbria on clearing all animals identified for slaughter in Solway, and on creating a firebreak south of the worst affected area.
Last Wednesday, I explained to the House what actions the Government were taking to speed up our response to the disease. I believe that we have taken the right actions and I will spell out what effect they are already having. We have made full use of the resources of the Army. At my Ministry's request, 780 soldiers are now deployed and are helping with the logistic operations. They include 115 soldiers in Scotland and 50 in Wales, in addition to more than 600 in England, of whom 118 are in Cumbria and a further 72 in Devon. As well as the Army unit in our headquarters in London, there are Army headquarters in Exeter, Worcester, Carlisle and Dumfries. Military liaison officers will be joining all major disease control centres. The Army's role is to enhance command and control and to assist in the disposal process. Its presence allows us to free up vets to concentrate solely on veterinary matters.
Last week, I informed the House that we had put in place senior officials as directors of operations in Cumbria and Devon and were about to do so in Worcester. In addition to those three, we have since put in place further directors of operations in Stafford, Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leicester and Newcastle. These senior administrators have also taken over operational tasks from senior vets and allowed them to get on with their veterinary work.
We are also bringing more and more vets into the front line. The total number of vets in the state veterinary service who are tackling the disease is now 1,235, and we are looking to increase this number still further. We are

following up offers of assistance from the French and Spanish Governments. An appeal by the British Veterinary Association to its members has generated a large number of inquiries, which are being pursued. Enhanced rates of pay for temporary vets were announced last week.
Wherever possible, we have reduced the time between when a vet makes one inspection and when he or she can make the next one. Where the disease risk is minimal, the turnaround time has been reduced to 24 hours. We have simplified the valuation arrangements while at the same time safeguarding farmers' interests by introducing a generous standard tariff. More than 95 per cent. of confirmations now take place on clinical grounds; that is, without the need for laboratory tests. We have revised protocols to allow vets in the field to make on—site judgments and to initiate slaughter.
The key task is to reduce the time between the first report of the disease and the slaughter of the herd or flock. Our target remains that that should not exceed 24 hours. The epidemiological studies published last week confirmed that that is the crucial intervention that will enable us to get on top of the disease. We are achieving that in large parts of the country, including Devon in recent days. In Cumbria, the high density of infection and sheer number of cases has meant that we are not yet achieving that target, and work is in hand to address that.
Yesterday, I visited the two most affected areas of the country, Cumbria and Devon. I saw for myself the hard work that is being done by the state veterinary service, the Army and all the other parties involved. I also met farmers and their leaders.
There has been a good deal of speculation recently about the possible use of vaccination as an ingredient in our foot and mouth disease control strategy. Vaccination can be used in two quite different ways. One approach is to use a national policy of vaccination as the protection mechanism against foot and mouth disease. That is not a policy that is adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission.
It is, however, accepted that emergency vaccination can play a role in controlling an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities.
Vaccination is no easy option. It would be expected to delay full return to international trade, at least for the region affected, and would be likely to require tight additional controls—again, at least in the area concerned. We would need to consider, with the Commission, whether it was necessary in due course to slaughter vaccinated animals—with compensation, of course—as part of a return to normal trading.
The Government are considering whether to use vaccination. I have therefore authorised my representative in the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee to seek a contingent decision permitting the use of vaccination during the present outbreak, so that it can be deployed immediately if we conclude that it is the right approach.
We have done a great deal to help farmers financially. Our help includes full compensation for animals slaughtered on disease grounds, the provision of


agrimonetary compensation and the preservation of common agricultural policy subsidy entitlements under EU rules on force majeure. In addition, last week I opened the livestock welfare disposal scheme as an outlet of last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of foot and mouth disease-related movement restrictions. The scheme provides for the removal and disposal of animals, for which Government will bear the costs. At 90 per cent. of pre-outbreak market value, the tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The detailed payment rates are being placed in the House Libraries today. The estimated value of that optional scheme to farmers obviously depends on take-up, but it is now likely to be in excess of £200 million.
Let me now turn to what we know about the possible causes of the current outbreak, the spread of infection and the differences between this and the 1967 outbreak. It is likely that the source farm, from which the outbreak subsequently spread, was the fourth infected premises to be discovered, at Heddon-on-the-Will. Hon. Members will be aware of speculation that the practice of feeding swill to pigs was a cause, or the cause, of the outbreak. The farm in question, at Heddon, was licensed to feed swill to pigs. Epidemiological and other investigations continue. I know that the House will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the case.
The subsequent spread of infection is traceable to some extent. Virus from the source farm spread to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear. Sheep from, one of those farms were sent to Hexham market on 13 February; sheep from the 13 February market at Hexham were sent to markets at Longtown, and further dispersed from there during the period between 14 and 24 February. So within days, at a time when we were still unaware of the disease, infected sheep were criss-crossing the country in hundreds of separate movements, and coming into contact with other livestock.
From Longtown market, sheep were sent to markets at Carlisle on 16 February and at Welshpool on 19 February; to dealers at Highampton, Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Dearham in Cumbria and Nantwich in Cheshire; and, indirectly, to markets at Hatherleigh on 20 February, Hereford on 21 February, Northampton on 22 February and Ross-on-Wye on 23 February.
While tracing movements of pigs from the index farm has proved relatively straightforward. tracking movements of sheep has proved more difficult and in some cases impossible. That is partly due to unrecorded sales of sheep, which it seems took place around the edges of various livestock markets without passing through the markets' books.
Over the past four weeks, many comparisons have been drawn with the 1967 outbreak. The truth is, however, that the two outbreaks are very different The key differences between this outbreak and that of 1967 are the speed and geographical scale of the spread of infection—which result from a number of factors—and the species involved. Experts agree that the current outbreak is unprecedented internationally. First, time had elapsed before the infection at the probable source farm was disclosed. The suspicious lesions found on pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22 February suggest that the pigs had been incubating the disease for at least two, and possibly up to three, weeks. By 23 February, when infection was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall, infected

animals had already spread through markets and dealers to Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Devon, Cheshire, Herefordshire and Northamptonshire.
Linked to that, the second factor in the speed and scale of the spread was the larger scale of animal movements nowadays compared to 1967, aided by a much improved network of roads and motorways. A third factor was that the infection spread quickly to sheep. and then among sheep. The nature of sheep flocks and the way in which they are traded made the course of the infection more difficult to trace. The 1967 outbreak was mainly in pigs and cattle. The strain of the virus with which we are currently dealing does not manifest itself clearly in sheep, which makes detection difficult. Apparently healthy animals may be disease carriers.
I am announcing four actions in response to this assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The first measure relates to pigswill. I am today proposing a ban on the use of swill feeding in this country. I accept that the arguments in favour of and against allowing the practice are quite finely balanced. If the statutory conditions for feeding swill are complied with—heating at 100 deg C for one hour—it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens.
Banning swill feeding will not necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs—possibly by the owners of small numbers of pigs, for example. However. I have concluded that the risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms on which swill is not used, and to the wider community, is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises that continue to adopt the practice. That is why I am proposing an early ban.
My Department is today issuing a public consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the principle and detailed application of such a ban. Meanwhile, let me remind the owners of all the pigs in the country, including pet pigs, to comply with the current law. It is illegal to feed untreated household waste or any other materials that may contain meat products.
I am also issuing a second consultation document today containing a proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period, after movement, for sheep, goats and cattle. There are rules on the identification and movement of pigs, including a general requirement that no pigs should be moved off premises within 20 days of any pigs moving on to those premises. If a similar requirement had been in place, and observed, in relation to sheep in particular, it is likely that the spread of the foot and mouth virus would have been significantly slowed down, making tracing and control of the infection easier. I am minded, therefore, to introduce legislation to require a 20-day standstill period for sheep, goats and cattle, subject to the views of interested parties. That is why I am launching a full consultation exercise today.
Thirdly, we know that, somehow, infection has entered this country. One possible way is through illegal commercial imports of meat, in which contents have not been declared. There is clearly an issue in relation to carrier liability, to which the Government will give careful thought. Another possibility is that infected produce might have come in as a personal import. Rules already exist to control such imports, and they must be enforced effectively. I am co-ordinating action across government


to ensure that this happens. I shall also write to Commissioner Byrne to stress that a consistent and tough approach needs to be taken across the European Union.
Lastly, once we are beyond the current difficulties, my Department will consider a range of other issues relating to the operation of the livestock sector, to ascertain whether more can be done to minimise disease risks still further. This work will cover the operation of markets—in particular, out-of-ring sales—and the identification and tracing of pigs, sheep and goats. In all those matters, I shall act in close consultation with the devolved Administrations.
This has been a dreadful time for farmers and others directly affected by foot and mouth disease. I believe that our policy of containing the disease is the right one, and that the massive logistical exercise required to implement it is being reinforced. We will succeed in eradicating this disease. In addition, I believe that the measures I have announced today will ensure that we learn the lessons and minimise the risks of such a tragedy in the future.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for letting me have a copy of his statement about 20 minutes before he made it. I begin by again expressing our warm appreciation of the work of all those who are fighting to contain the outbreak.
As the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease continues its remorseless rise, let no one forget that behind each deadly statistic lies a terrible human tragedy. A farmer—often a whole family—faces the prospect of months of emptiness and inactivity and, beyond that, a very uncertain future. In urging the Government to work harder to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease, I am thinking not only of the mounting economic damage that it is inflicting: my heart is with the men, women and children on farms who sit helplessly as the disease gets nearer day by day and finally strikes.
Let me repeat that the Opposition will continue to back the Government whenever they take timely, effective and appropriate steps, as we have at every stage in the crisis, even when the action proposed was unpopular. That was the case with the cull around Cumbria, which the Government announced 12 days ago. We gave immediate and unqualified support.
On the proposals made by the Minister today, we share the concern about the use of pigswill and the large number of perfectly legal sheep movements and transactions that appear to have occurred. We support in principle the steps that he proposes and we shall examine the details when they are published.
On the origin of the outbreak, I am interested in the Minister's view that Heddon-on-the-Wall was the original source. Does that mean that the Government are now certain that foot and mouth disease was not present elsewhere in Britain before the case in Northumberland? Will he publish all the relevant reports, which may shed light on the possible origins of the outbreak? Can he assure the House categorically that no one—not even officials in his Ministry, either in London or the regions—was aware of a possible foot and mouth disease outbreak before 19 February 2001?
I welcome the Minister's recognition that the weakness of Britain's import controls probably allowed infected produce to enter our country and cause the outbreak of

foot and mouth disease. He knows that the Conservative party has been calling for tougher enforcement of all rules relating to meat imports for a very long time and I hope that early action will be taken effectively.
Is the Minister aware of the surprise that many people express when they learn of the continued legal import of meat from countries where foot and mouth disease outbreaks have occurred in the recent past? Although measures to prevent foot and mouth from returning to Britain in future are important for the longer term, does he accept that none of the proposals on banning pigswill, a 20-day standstill period for livestock and carrier liability will do anything to deal with the immediate crisis or to slow down the relentless spread of foot and mouth disease across our countryside?
Does the Minister agree that vaccination is the very last resort and that if the Government decide that some form of vaccination is necessary, they will, in effect, be admitting that their other policies have failed? [Interruption.] Yes. Will he confirm that if Britain is to regain its status as a foot and mouth disease-free nation in a reasonable period, every single animal that is vaccinated would still have to be slaughtered eventually?
Does the Minister agree that the permanent loss of our foot and mouth disease-free status would have profound consequences that would go far wider than the livestock industry? Will he confirm that vaccinated animals cannot be slaughtered for human consumption?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government's chief scientific adviser said last Friday that, if the Government did not step up the scale of their measures to prevent the spread of the disease, in the worst-case analysis up to half Britain's livestock would be lost? Will he further confirm that one of the measures that the chief scientific officer described as essential was cutting to 24 hours the time between reporting a case and slaughtering the animal? Will he admit that in most areas the target is not being achieved?
The Minister stated this afternoon that 264,000 animals are awaiting slaughter. Will he confirm that, in the 24 hours that ended at 3 pm yesterday, only 31,000 animals were slaughtered? At the current rate of progress, it will take not 24 hours but more than eight days to clear the backlog of animals, even if no further cases are identified. In those eight days, thousands of animals run the risk of spreading the disease still further. Will the Minister confirm that the Government fell even further behind events because in the 24 hours to 3 pm yesterday, 48,000 more animals were identified as requiring slaughter, but only 31,000 were slaughtered? That means that 17,000 more remain on the waiting list.
Will the Minister confirm that the figures for carcases are scarcely better? Despite the excellent but belated work that the Army is now allowed to do in Cumbria, the total number of carcases awaiting disposal increased yesterday to 104,000. Does the Minister finally realise that the Government's failure to act promptly and adequately in response to the crisis has led directly to the scale of the emergency that now engulfs our nation?
Does the Minister accept that many of the actions that the Government are starting to take are the steps that I suggested at a much earlier date? If the Government had brought in the Army in a hands-on role, as I suggested on 11 March, instead of waiting two more weeks; started on-farm burial, as I suggested on 15 March, instead of


persisting with potentially harmful incineration and rendering methods; and authorised vets to order immediate slaughter, as I suggested on 13 March, the problem would be much less serious.
For the Prime Minister to suggest yesterday that the Conservative party had jumped on a bandwagon was deeply insulting to those whose suffering our timely proposals are designed to help, and a hideous distortion of the truth, which demeans his great office. Like other Ministers before him, the Prime Minister claims that foot and mouth disease is being brought under control when, plainly, it is not, and that his policies are succeeding before they have been fully implemented.
In the six days since the Prime Minister said that he was taking personal charge of the crisis, the number of animals awaiting slaughter has increased by two thirds. The dither and confusion in Government have continued and the actions that the Prime Minister's chief scientific adviser described last Friday as essential for curbing the spread of the disease have not been fully carried out.

Mr. Brown: The situation with which we are dealing is unprecedented. I shall not rise to the bait because a serious problem confronts our country and I honestly believe that the best way to approach it is in as bipartisan a spirit as possible.
I shall take one at a time the points that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised, but first I express my thanks for his appreciation of the hard work of uniformed personnel and civilians in the field. They are working incredibly long hours to eradicate the disease, and they have to deal with a rising profile of cases, especially in Cumbria and Devon. The rise is remorseless, and the hon. Gentleman was right to describe the situation as a human tragedy. I give this commitment on the Government's behalf—we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the farming community and the broader rural community and do what we can to make the uncertain future to which the hon. Gentleman referred more certain. We will stand in the farmers' corner, not just helping them through the disease outbreak but working with them on a recovery plan afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had stood by me even when I had to make unpopular decisions. If he can think of a popular decision that I can make in these circumstances, I would welcome his advice. There are some very hard choices to be made. There is not one recommendation that does not have a good argument against it, except this—doing nothing is not an option. Some very difficult questions must be addressed.
I met farmers yesterday in the hardest of circumstances in Cumbria, where the outbreak is most intense, and in Devon. I found the farming community very upset and distressed, quite naturally. I heard personal stories that were absolutely heartbreaking. However, the farmers were being brave enough to face up to the difficult decisions and discuss with me unpalatable alternative strategies—as I said, there are no palatable ones . It behoves all of us to do the same and to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the consultation on pigswill. On the movement of sheep and cattle, alternatives are set out in the two consultation documents, particularly with regard to how far we should

restrict cattle movements. I welcome views on the proposals. There are no right and wrong answers, just alternative routes that the Government could follow.
We believe, and have done since the early stages, that Heddon-on-the-Wall was the original source of the outbreak. There is a whole series of urban legends about officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knowing that the disease was in the country earlier and concealing it for some inexplicable purpose of their own. That simply is not true. I cannot publish what does not exist. There is no report marked "Secret", saying that there is foot and mouth disease in the country but we believe that no one will notice. Such a proposition is plainly absurd.
I cannot publish what is not there, but I can publish what I was told, and when. I asked for a note to be drawn up setting everything out in that crucial week from the first suspicion of the disease being present in Essex to the controls being put in place the following Friday. I am willing to put that in the Library so that people can see what Ministers were told, when, and what actions were taken.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had warned of the weakness of controls over foreign imports. They are the same controls that were in place for 18 years of Conservative government. They have not deteriorated over time. I want a hard look at how they are being enforced. There are two routes. First, is the rule on importation for personal use being abused? If so, how is it being abused and how can we tighten up enforcement? The second, separate, issue is meat products that are imported on containers, either lawfully or unlawfully, being described as something other than what they are. We need to take a hard look at those questions across Government, and I am co-ordinating that work from my Ministry.
The hon. Gentleman asked, perfectly properly, about vaccination. There are two ways, as I said in my statement, in which we might consider the use of vaccination. It would be a very serious step. There are arguments against it, and I want to consult the devolved authorities.
It is not true that in all circumstances the use of vaccination will compromise the disease-free status of the whole of Great Britain. I am determined to restore that disease-free status for the whole of Great Britain. That is the right strategy for the Government to pursue. We should not allow it to be compromised, not even by vaccination, but it may be possible to apply a policy of vaccination on a regional basis, and have the region in which it is applied treated differently. It is not automatic that vaccinated animals would be slaughtered afterwards, but there is a presumption that the Government would pursue such a policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our target of 24 hours from recognition of the disease to slaughter of the animals. That is by far the most important single intervention that we can make. We are achieving the target in most parts of the country, but we are still behind in Cumbria. We need to up our game to ensure that we achieve it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but it is a little like a back-seat driver saying, "You should have taken that left—hand turn half a mile back I now


realise," but also saying, "Get on with it." I do not need to be told to get on with it and nor do the officials on the ground.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when this Government were elected, live pigs were being fed with the remains of dead pigs, with pig slaughterhouse waste and with the waste from pet food manufacture, and that it was this Government who took action more than two years ago to ban those practices, which the previous Administration had done nothing about? Does not it follow, therefore, that anyone feeding any mammalian waste to pigs today is acting unlawfully? I hope that the proper consequences will flow from that.
Will my right hon. Friend also recognise that even in the most dire circumstances in Cumbria he has the overwhelming support of farmers in taking the tough and often complex decisions that he is having to take? In that regard, will he assure me that he will spare no effort, but will use every resource and waste no time to take the steps necessary to isolate the outbreak at Seathwaite in the Cumbrian fells? If we are not able to do that, the consequences will be dire indeed.

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the constraints on the feeding of mammalian meat to pigs, except in the special circumstances involving heat treatment that I described to the House. I met Cumbrian farmers yesterday and I was enormously impressed by their fortitude and resilience in the most appalling circumstances. I can promise my right hon. Friend that the Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with his constituents and their neighbours until the disease. is eradicated and a recovery programme is firmly in place.

Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy in providing an early copy. We, too, support in principle the measures contained in the statement. I have a few questions, however.
First, the chief scientific adviser a few days ago used words to the effect that this was a disaster waiting to happen. When did he come to that conclusion and, more important, when did he communicate that fact to the Government? Secondly, what arrangements are to be made for the disposal of the waste food that will not now go into swill? Will it be the subject of proper regulation and inspection?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider permanently increasing the resources of the state veterinary service and, in effect, reversing the cuts that have taken place under the present Administration and under the previous Conservative Government?
Will there be additional port health inspectors to give real teeth to the inspection of imported food to ensure that this situation cannot happen again? Will the Minister also put more resources into the inspection of farms, in particular to enforce the 20-day restriction? It will be of little value if it is not rigidly controlled. Does he accept that vaccination might be a sensible precaution to protect special breeding flocks and cattle herds where valuable gene pools have to be preserved?
We still have not heard about a scheme to assist farmers with cattle over 30 months. That is becoming a real problem as more and more cattle fall into that category. Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to discuss with his colleagues a scheme to deal with that? Has he also considered the problems of healthy stock trapped within restricted areas? In some cases, they are now awaiting welfare disposal, rather than being moved for slaughter so that they go into the food chain. Is not that against basic common sense?
Is the Minister aware of a letter from a college in Germany that was passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)? It states:
Much to our regret we have to cancel our stay at your college from 28 March to 12 April … because of the foot and mouth disease. The Ministry of Agriculture has given advice to the Ministry for Cultural Affairs—
that is in Germany—
to stop all trips to England within the near future".
Perhaps that is somewhat at odds with the message that we understood we would be sending to Europe to ensure that such colleges maintain at least some business during the crisis.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make it clear that the letter probably refers to the German regional Ministry of Agriculture and not my Ministry. I know of no reason why people cannot visit market towns and other parts of the countryside. I have been very consistent in my advice on that matter—all that people have to do is to stay away from farmed livestock and support the authorities in the necessary work that they are undertaking.
On the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question about the over-30-months scheme, I am looking at what can be done to help farmers in these difficult circumstances. I cannot make an announcement today, but I am looking at the matter and I hope to be able to say something about it at some stage.
On vaccination, the hon. Gentleman is right: if we are to use vaccination as part of our disease control strategy, we must make absolutely certain that the consequences have been worked through and that we have a local management plan in the circumstances where we use that strategy. The hon. Gentleman is right that it could help in our desire to preserve rare breeds and animals that are particular to a region. That is one of the arguments in favour of using it. However, we need to be clear precisely how we would use it and why, and what the exit strategy will be.
On the 20-day standstill, yes, it will be inspected. There are other consequences; for example, looking at movement records for sheep, including the possibility of a recording system in the future that is similar to that currently used for cattle—so that the process is more transparent and more easily monitored.
The work of port health inspectors forms part of the work that I am taking forward within government.
I do not believe that the size of the state veterinary service has been substantially reduced since the Labour party came into government, but we shall clearly have to take a hard look at the ability of the service to respond to a rapidly changing situation when viral disease breaks out among animals.
If the chief scientist said that foot and mouth disease was a disaster waiting to happen, he was certainly behind the times; the disaster has already happened and we are trying to get on top of it. I did not hear him say that; he is advising the Government on the epidedemiology. That is useful work.

Mr. Derek Twigg: As we are now burying carcases, will that reduce the need to send them to rendering plants such as the one in my constituency? I am concerned that my right hon. Friend says that there seem to be some unrecorded movements of livestock. In his view, are there perhaps deliberate attempts to hide things for financial gain? There were some dodgy practices leading to BSE. A National Audit Office report on set-aside policy found more than 1,000 irregularities. Is there something wrong in the farming industry that we should know about?

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on individual cases that may come before the courts. It is perfectly clear from the tracing work undertaken by MAFF officials that some anomalies still need to be reconciled; a possible explanation is the unrecorded movement of livestock.
Where on-farm burial can be used as a disposal route, it is used. There have been about 42 such disposals in Cumbria alone. However, there are also difficulties—the most obvious of which is the presence of the water table. It really is not a good idea to put a large number of dead and decomposing animals into the watercourse.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In Westminster Hall this morning, I raised the serious problem that farmers will shortly have to decide whether to turn their stock out from the cowsheds on to the pastures, because they will soon run out of fodder. When the stock are turned out on the pastures, that is likely to spread the disease more quickly and to a larger geographical area. Farmers will need clear advice from the Ministry as to whether they should turn their stock out. Will the Minister comment on that this afternoon?

Mr. Brown: Yes. One of the purposes of the proactive cull that I announced some 12 days ago is to make a pre-emptive strike on the disease, which mostly involves sheep but some pigs, so that the disease in sheep can be firmly contained before cattle let out on to summer pastures, because by and large we have managed to keep the disease out of cattle so far. I know that there are exceptions to that, especially in the hot spots, but this problem is predominantly associated with sheep, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that we get on top of it now. It is also important that we give clear advice to those who are thinking of turning cattle out into pastures that have recently been vacated by sheep.

Mr. Doug Henderson: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, adjacent to Heddon-on-the-Wall, there is a clear understanding that the sole cause of the spread of the disease is its virulence?
However, there is confusion among the people on the question of vaccination—which I believe has been fuelled today. There is not an understanding of the distinction between vaccination as a way of preventing the entry of foot and mouth into a body of beasts or a country, and

vaccination as part of a programme of culling to rid a country, an area or a group of beasts of an existing foot and mouth infection. Clearly, it would be in relation to the latter that my right hon. Friend's officials have given consideration to the subject. I urge him to make it absolutely clear to the public that that is the case, that any vaccination policy would be, in effect, part of the culling policy, and that any beasts that were vaccinated should therefore be immediately slaughtered.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is in the second context that he describes that the Government are considering a vaccination policy, but we have not yet decided whether such a policy would help us with our disease eradication proposal. The Government have no intention whatever of generally vaccinating livestock in Great Britain. I cannot envisage our undertaking such a policy.
My understanding of the outbreak in Heddon-on-the-Wall and in my hon. Friend's constituency in Newcastle is the same as his: that his constituents were affected by the plume that rose from the intensively farmed pigs that had the disease, we now know, for two, perhaps three, weeks.

Mr. Owen Paterson: If the Minister is so convinced that the outbreak did not begin before 19 February, how come the sheep that left Great Britain on 31 January, shipped by Mr. Hugues Inizan, arrived in France and were tested positive by the French authorities?

Mr. Brown: It is perfectly possible that those sheep lay over in a lairage with, or after, sheep carrying the virus, or at least the antibodies, when they arrived in France. In other words, there are explanations as to the route by which the infectivity was brought there, other than the conspiracy theory that it was in our country before the beginning of February. I have looked quite hard at this question and I must tell the hon. Gentleman and others that there is not a shred of evidence that the first outbreak was the result of anything other than events at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's decision to appoint Brigadier Birtwhistle to take control of part of this exercise, in Cumbria. He is doing a first-class job, along with his 118 troops, and he is inspiring confidence in the population.
There is growing support for ring vaccination in Cumbria. Can my right hon. Friend ensure the future of the Herdwick sheep, the future of which worries us because they play such an important part in land management in the county?

Mr. Brown: I understand the very special points about Herdwick sheep, and I tried to refer to them, and the principles more generally, in an earlier answer. Yes, we will do what we can to preserve the Herdwick sheep, but that action must be compatible with the rest of the disease containment strategy. That is a reason, although I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is a subsidiary one, why we might consider a vaccination strategy in the localised circumstances in Cumbria, but I emphasise that we are not there yet and any decision will be made in discussion


not just with the NFU nationally, but with the territorial departments and farmers locally. I met local farmers on my visit yesterday, and I found them to be very brave, resilient and willing to face up to difficult decisions. I also found them very appreciative of the leadership of the armed forces and of the contribution that the armed forces are making to disease control.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister recall that the first revelation appears to have been in Essex, not in Northumberland, so there is something of a question mark about the extent to which sufficient analysis was done, by officials or others and/or by Northumberland county council, in respect of the Heddon incident? That matter needs to be properly investigated. No doubt the Minister is giving the best answers that he can on the basis of the best evidence that he has at the moment, but will he give a guarantee to the House that a public inquiry will be held in due course, so that everyone can be fully satisfied that the statements made so far can be verified?

Mr. Brown: There has already been an inquiry into the matter. The farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall was farm No. 4 in the order of infected premises. It was discovered as a suspect on a Thursday and confirmed on the Friday morning, when Parliament was in recess. In fact, I telephoned the Prime Minister that day�žhe was in the United States—and we had the movement restrictions imposed, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, by 5.30 that afternoon, so we acted pretty promptly. The issue is that disease was incubating on those premises for a fortnight, perhaps three weeks. In other words, it had been present; it had not been reported to the Ministry; it had formed a plume and we now know that other animals had been infected, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and in that of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).

Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Carlisle yesterday, meeting the MAFF staff and seeing the excellent work that they have done, together with the vets and the Army. I understand that Brigadier Birtwhistle is due to retire in a week's time, so I hope that good offices will prevail and that he will be kept there for a little longer. There is dispute in Cumbria about vaccination, but people want clarity. Although we must take the right decision on vaccination, will my right hon. Friend try to take that decision as speedily as possible, so the options become available to Cumbrian farmers?

Mr. Brown: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I also promise to return to his constituency to discuss the issue personally with farmers' leaders before any decision is taken. It is an important decision; it affects the livelihoods of those in my hon. Friend's constituency, as well as those in neighbouring constituencies. I will return to Carlisle, and I will discuss the issue very carefully with farmers before any decision is made. I will also make it abundantly clear precisely what the decision is; in which circumstances, if at all, vaccination would be used; and what the exit strategy would be for the animals.

When I visited Cumbria, I found a yearning for clear-cut advice and to have the policies clearly stated and well understood.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Minister will agree that one of the most important things for farmers is to have information. Much of my constituency is now in an exclusion zone. Pig farmers and other livestock farmers need to know when and if they can move their animals to slaughter, or whether there will be welfare slaughter schemes. In fairness, they are getting no information at all. They cannot get any information from MAFF. They asked the NFU, but the NFU local secretary tells me that he cannot get any information. When I have tabled parliamentary questions to Ministers on their behalf, I have received the reply
I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Somewhere, somehow, the Ministry must be able, through the NFU or others, to let farmers know what is happening. It is grossly unfair to keep all those who are desperately concerned in the dark and to deny them information.

Mr. Brown: We have been quite successful in getting a fair bit of the domestic livestock industry back to some form of movement. I accept that it is not taking place under normal conditions; the licensing requirements are tight, severe and bureaucratic. However—believe me—if unlicensed movements of livestock were taking place throughout the country. the chances of eliminating the disease would be dramatically diminished. I know that people find the licensing regime burdensome, but I assure the House that it is necessary.
There is a whole separate set of questions about the welfare disposal scheme which is designed to help farmers in circumstances in which the animals cannot move through the trade and cannot be managed locally. I agree that there have been teething troubles, but we are trying to resolve them. Potentially, the scheme will be very popular.

Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will know that we have a major outbreak in the Berkeley area of my constituency where seven farms have already been infected. We are now about to embark on the proactive cull. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend define what is meant exactly by contiguous holdings, because the issue is causing concern? Will he also tell us how the chain of information goes to such holdings, because there have been difficulties in the way in which that has taken place? Will he consider the issue of disposal, because we must get on top of that problem very quickly—and will he also consider the role of slaughterhouses in areas of infectivity, because they have a major influence on what animals can move and where?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his final point but, to some extent, that problem is unavoidable.
Infected premises will be slaughtered out within 24 hours; that is the target that we have set and, as I have said before, it is the single most important intervention that we can make. There is a target of 48 hours for the contiguous premises, but clearly veterinary resources have to be prioritised. Infected premises—including any that might exist in other parts of my hon. Friend's county—


are the priority but, when the infectivity is less dense, it is perfectly possible for a vet to take a slaughter team with him, identify the animals and slaughter can take place at once. Although I cannot promise that it will always happen, it is possible in some cases that the surrounding premises can then be visited and slaughter—I know it is hard, but it is necessary—can commence there as well.
My hon. Friend asked about the definition of contiguous premises. It covers those that border the infected farm holding, but it is possible to make a case in exceptional circumstance. However, the circumstances must be exceptional—the general rule is that the animals are to be culled out.

Mr. John Burnett: We now have the voluntary livestock. welfare disposal scheme, but I assure the Minister that it is not working. A pig farmer in my constituency—who I believe the Minister met yesterday—now has 3,000 more pigs on his farm than the buildings can accommodate. That is absolutely disastrous. Yesterday, the farmer was ready to move his pigs to the licensed abattoir at Hatherleigh, which was ready to receive them, and transport was laid on to start the process.
At 7 pm, an official from MAFF rang and cancelled everything. He stated that animals should be slaughtered on the farm. The Minister must concede that that would be dreadfully inhumane, a danger to public health and appalling for animal welfare purposes . I dare not dwell on the consequences of partial culls being handled on the farm, especially in pig buildings. I am told that the official who cancelled the arrangements was a Whitehall official, so will the Minister please resolve the chaos and confusion and issue instructions immediately that the scheme should proceed through the abattoir at once?

Mr. Brown: I will take a hard look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, there may be countervailing reasons why the instruction was given—I do not know and I do not want to rush to judgment. The hon. Gentleman is right—I spoke to his constituent yesterday—and I assure him that I shall have a hard look at that case and get it resolved.

Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend's frank and detailed statement and the spirit with which he is trying to address the genuine concerns of Members of all parties. I remind him that we now have eight confirmed cases in my constituency and perhaps another two about to be confirmed. It looks as though the situation in the county of Durham is continuing to deteriorate. I welcome the evidence of the speed with which slaughter is already following identification. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the rumours that the Army may come to the county are true?

Mr. Brown: There will be a military presence to help with the logistics in controlling the outbreak in Durham, in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. The response time from discovery to slaughter is vital in preventing the spread of the disease in County Durham.

Mr. Tim Collins: Is the Minister aware that I was contacted earlier this afternoon

by Mr. Colin Keron, a constituent of mine who is working as a temporary vet in Carlisle? He described the position in Carlisle as a continuing complete absence of management. When MAFF is scouring the world to find additional vets, I am told by Mr. Keron that vets in Carlisle are spending two to three hours at a time cooling their heels, waiting to be assigned, and when they do go out on assignment, it can take them up to an hour to get through to MAFF's phone line to get a new assignment. Mr. Keron describes the foot and mouth situation in the county as absolutely and completely out of control, and he joins the call of many others, including Members of all parties, for vaccination to be adopted immediately. The Minister will recall that I raised the case for vaccination with him six days ago. Can he please move beyond the consultation phase to action?

Mr. Brown: No, I cannot, because there are serious reasons why one might not want to use vaccination. That strategy is not to be rushed into just because some people call for it; others are bitterly opposed to it. It is important to explain carefully what we are doing, why we are doing it and what our exit strategy is, and it is vital that we explain ourselves properly to farmers and carry them with us. I did hear something of the complaints that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when I visited Carlisle yesterday, and I am taking action to make the best possible use of veterinarians' time.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the supportive remarks made by vets and farmers in Dover, Deal and other parts of east Kent. Will he consider the particular circumstances prevailing in east Kent, where two cases have been confirmed purely on observations, but all the blood and tissue tests have proved negative and local vets and certainly local farmers are convinced that there is not a foot and mouth outbreak? Yet we have the imposition of all the restrictions about which we have heard this afternoon, and tomorrow a massive cull is threatened of what I consider to be healthy cattle.

Mr. Brown: I said earlier that there is not a popular announcement that I could make. If I lifted the movement restrictions, as my hon. Friend asks me to do, and the disease spread throughout the southern parts of our country, I would be justly criticised. I am afraid that it is necessary to keep those restrictions in place for the time being and to work through the licensed movement system where we can. 1 know that that is hard news. I understand why people who believe that their animals are healthy resent it, but there is not an easy option and the right thing to do is to keep the restrictions in place. I apologise to my hon. Friend's constituents for that, but it is for the greater good.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whenever I speak to farmers they ask for two things: clarity of advice and co-ordination of operations? He heard what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about Brigadier Birtwhistle. Will he consider, as I asked him on Friday, appointing a senior military officer, to be directly answerable to him, to take charge of the operations nationwide, rather than merely having a series


of regional commanders? When will the Minister give Members of Parliament the briefing that he promised us last week?

Mr. Brown: The briefing is placed in the Library daily and should have been placed in the Opposition Whips Office. As for last Friday's presentation to journalists and Members of Parliament who could attend, I aim to repeat that exercise this week or at the beginning of next week at the latest. I shall try to hold it at a time that is convenient for hon. Members, which I understand is mid-week.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend or his ministerial colleagues had a moment to reflect on the proposal in New Scientist, which I sent to him, that napalm could be used to destroy carcases quickly? If there is a shortage of napalm in Britain, surely the Americans could help. [Interruption.]

Mr. Brown: I understand the question. It is not as frivolous as Opposition Members seem to think. We are considering a range of disposal routes, but napalm is not one of them—not even as a fuel, which is, I think, what my hon. Friend means.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Now that the epidemic has become a pandemic, I welcome the Minister's commitment at least to look at the possibility of using vaccines. How much vaccine is in the United Kingdom and how much might have to be imported? What contingency plans does he have to distribute the vaccine to vets?

Mr. Brown: Purely on a contingency basis, plans are quite far advanced. Some 500,000 shots are lined up for this strain of foot and mouth disease and I have access to an additional 5 million vaccinations, if they are needed. A vaccination strategy requires repeat vaccination. It is not an intervention that is carried out just once. We must also consider the time that it takes for the vaccine to have an effect. The shot that we have had made up is particularly vigorous and would have an impact on the animals between four days and a week.

Mr. Fabricant: What about distribution?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks about distribution. We can get our hands on it fairly quickly.

Ms Chris McCafferty: My right hon. Friend will he aware that Calderdale is part of a severely restricted blanket exclusion zone, but local farmers have complained to me that they are not being officially told that they are in such an area. They are finding that out through the NFU, through conversations with neighbours or when they apply for movement licences. A number of those farms are more than 17 km from the outbreak in neighbouring Queensbury and the NFU has made representations to the Ministry to get the restriction limited to the 10 km exclusion zone. Clearly, welfare problems are an issue for anyone in a restricted area and I am not pleading a special case. However, it appears that

a decision has been made to blanket an area when the normal restrictions might be more appropriate. Secondly—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: 0rder. The hon. Lady has one bite at the cherry.

Mr. Brown: I shall consider the control zones in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, they take into account local circumstances, are imposed on veterinary advice and are vital to prevent the spread of the disease.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister acknowledge that there are three crises in the countryside? First, that of the farmers who have foot and mouth on their holdings, with the tragedy that that entails; secondly, that of the farmers who are caught in the restricted areas, which are widely drawn from London without regional guidance and where enormous problems of animal welfare and of running a business are building up; and, thirdly, the difficulties experienced by hundreds of thousands of ordinary businesses because there are tourist attractions with no tourists, visitor attractions with no visitors and businesses with no customers. Will he deal with those issues?
In addition, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he cannot build a firebreak on the fells? If the disease gets on the Pennine uplands, it will sweep south like a brush fire. Vaccination might be necessary to stop that. Will he take that decision quickly? If he does vaccinate, will he ensure that he has got the vets to do the job? I am afraid that there is a history of a long interval between the Minister announcing policy intentions and their implementation.

Mr. Brown: It would not be necessary to have vets to pursue each individual vaccination. That can be done by others who are trained only to vaccinate the animals. For once, veterinary resources are not a constraint on policy. I have been as candid as I can be with the House. We have a vaccination strategy under consideration, which I am not announcing today. A contingency plan is being moved into place if we decide to go down that route. If we decide to stand it down, we shall stand it down.
We have tried to respond to the broader difficulties in the rural community, including those faced by the operators of tourist businesses and others. 1 have introduced the farm animal welfare scheme to deal with those who cannot in move their animals and cannot manage them in their local circumstances. The rates have been widely welcomed by the trade. They are as close to market conditions as we would dare get without disrupting the market. That has been done to try to help hard-pressed farmers Where the disease is found, we buy the animals on the basis of 100 per cent. compensation. I agree that that does not solve the problem, but it goes some way.

Mr. James Plaskitt: May I ask my right hon. Friend about abattoirs such as Farmers Fresh, which is a producer-owned and producer-led business in Warwickshire? I met some of its representatives last night. It is a high-standard abattoir and


it was making significant progress in securing export markets for British lamb. With the present low through-put, it is facing awkward difficulties.
As my right hon. Friend said, we need to think also about recovery. The Farmers Fresh abattoir will need to exist when, as is to be hoped, we arrive soon at recovery. What help is he thinking of giving such abattoirs in the intervening period?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to set out the difficulties that are faced by other parts of the food chain, including abattoirs. We are trying to get work moving where we safely can. We are trying to do other things to help the sector. He talks of a business being geared up for the export market. I do not know the circumstances in detail, but any recovery plan—we are working on such a plan with the industry—must take into account the fact that the export trade, especially for the sheep sector, is likely to be constrained for some time

Mr. John Greenway: Will the Minister consider urgently the practical issue of pedigree breeding flocks and breeding herds? Owners of such flocks—the sheep have genes that go back more than 100 years—are petrified that if the disease gets into them they will lose them for ever. I would like the right, hon. Gentleman to press that issue.
Will the Minister consider the question of price? It is welcome that cattle and sheep can now be moved to abattoirs, but the prices that are being paid, especially for sheep, are extremely low. There is a feeling that farmers are being ripped off by the trade. Will he look into that? Does he agree that one way to resolve the issue is to encourage both consumers and Government Departments to buy British?

Mr. Brown: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about buying British. I appeal to everyone: if we want to help the British livestock market in these difficult times, we should buy its product. It is clearly identified in retail outlets. Let us make a special effort to buy British. That would help to reinforce the supply chain and reinforce prices within it. I have appealed to everyone in these difficult circumstances to treat one another fairly, and I am happy to repeat the appeal today.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about rare breeds. I want to do what I can to save pedigree stock and rare breeds. He is right to say that a local vaccination strategy may help us to achieve that objective, either directly or indirectly.

Mr. John McFall: I commend my right hon. Friend and his Department for their approach to this terrible problem. I am aware that he has documentary evidence, supplied by Sky Television and others, of illegal activities. Does he agree that the real issue involves livestock dealers and markets? Will he consider what I feel is a reasonable suggestion made by Commissioner Byrne, which is the tagging of sheep ?

Mr. Brown: We are in close contact with the European Commission about all that. I have not yet received the evidence that Sky Television said that it would send me, but when I do, naturally I shall examine it very carefully indeed.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Having listened to the Minister and to the Market Bosworth branch of the

National Farmers Union earlier in the day, I have to tell him that he has no chance of meeting the 24-hour and 48-hour deadlines in west Leicestershire. He must bring the Army in if he expects to have an extended cull.
Why has MAFF got a block on the use of homeopathic borax, which has been used in previous outbreaks with great success? Does he remember that Nye Bevan said:
Why read the crystal ball when he can read the book?"?
Will the Minister read the homeopathic medicine book, and understand that borax is well documented as being very effective in preventing foot and mouth?

Mr. Brown: Getting our response time down to 24 hours from discovery to slaughter is essential; all our endeavours drive in that direction. In response to a question on a previous statement, I promised the hon. Gentleman that I would have the issue examined. I have asked for that to be done, but I have not yet seen the response.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What progress has been made in identifying more carcase disposal sites in Devon?

Mr. Brown: A great deal of progress has been made. There are a number of possible sites and I know that there is a lot of interest in exactly which one will be used; all sorts of rumours are going round the community, as always happens on such occasions. I am not in a position to make a statement to the House today; in fact, I expect the announcement to be made locally. However, we are looking to open other disposal routes, and I understand that we are pretty close to getting those arrangements in hand and announced.

Mr. William Thompson: May I personally thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he and his Ministry offered at the meeting of the European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee today, which agreed to give Northern Ireland regional export status? That was very good news for Northern Ireland. Given that the principle of regionalisation in the United Kingdom has now been accepted, will he consider opening up other areas on the mainland that do not have cases of foot and mouth so that they too can benefit from that development?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right: the Government want to pursue a regionalisation strategy where possible. I am pleased that we have got acceptance in principle for the strong and perfectly justified case made by Northern Ireland. As our efforts bear down on the disease and we confirm the disease-free status of the north of Scotland, western Wales and East Anglia, it may well be possible to make adjustments to localised movement controls and perhaps, in time, for trade more generally to resume. It is early days, but clearly we have that at the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend is right that British consumers who want to support British farmers can go out and buy British products. Does he agree that if British people want to support their tourism sector and the broader rural economy, they should go out and do so now? Will he prevail on Opposition Members and perhaps the media to desist from their unhelpful assertion that the countryside is closed?
Even in infected areas such as my constituency there are small family businesses, such as the hotel in Shifnal, which has lost 75 per cent. of its trade in March for no good reason, and the village pub that 1 visited on Saturday, which has lost 30 per cent. of its trade for no good reason. Does my right hon. Friend agree that careless talks costs livelihoods and jobs and will he seek to instil that point into Opposition Members?

Mr. Brown: We are facing a serious disease outbreak in animals; that is no reason to avoid the countryside. All people have to do is stay away from farmed livestock. There are many things in our market towns, heritage sites and so on that people can visit; they should just stay away from farmed livestock. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Sir Richard Body: As one who has an unforgettable memory of the outbreak in 1967, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the then Minister, Fred Peart, was advised not only that the slaughtered animals should be buried immediately, but that if the carcases were burned, there was a serious risk that the virus was so viable that it could be carried a considerable distance beyond the infected area?

Mr. Brown: I do not know what advice was given to Fred Peart in 1967—I was at school at the time—but I do know that the business about the virus being spread by on-farm burning is a myth. The risk of the virus being spread as a result of the fires destroying the animals is vanishingly small. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on-farm burial should be considered as an option. Indeed, it is used as an option, but only where that is compatible with the water table and with other very necessary disease—I include prion disease—control measures.

Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to movement controls? Clearly, we must be vigilant about authorising any movements, particularly within restricted areas. However, the experience reported by my constituents, of very long distances being travelled from areas as far as the north of Scotland into my constituency for slaughter under the licence to slaughter scheme, contrasts with the extraordinary bureaucratic process that must be followed to obtain an occupational licence, with a paper chase across two regional service centres, and a vet's authorisation as well.

Mr. Brown: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but he describes two quite separate operations. No matter how long it is, there is very little risk in the final journey of the livestock to the abattoir. Such journeys cannot be interrupted, and the animals are supposed to be certified clear of the disease, but even if it is incubating in them without having yet come to fruition, they are going to an abattoir, where they will be examined by a vet and killed. They will therefore cease to breathe out the virus. There is an enormous difference between that and animals that are moved for perfectly proper reasons but will live on and risk meeting other animals, which thereby risk contracting the disease.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: The Minister is aware that the number of cases in Northumberland and County

Durham is rising, and there is great concern about the length of time that it is taking to detect the disease and slaughter the animals . For example, in one of the last two cases discovered in my constituency, it took five days from detection to slaughter, and in the other case, the animal, which was identified on Saturday morning, had still not been slaughtered two or three hours ago. That is causing serious concern that the disease will spread. One answer would be to take responsibility for the region away from Carlisle, which is clearly overwhelmed, and set up an independent control centre in Newcastle, so that we could get the help of the Army and have a chance of beating the disease. Will the Minister also confirm that farmers selling directly to other farmers or to dealers is not illegal, and that that has more to do with saving auctioneer's commission than fiddling any EU subsidy?

Mr. Brown: I am no expert, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is right about dealing outside the market. It does relate to the auctioneer's commission. If people can come to an arrangement among themselves, that in itself is not illegal. With regard to controlling the outbreak in Hexham we are setting up a localised control headquarters in Newcastle. I cannot say with certainty whether that would embrace all his constituency, but I will check for him and make sure that he is told. He is absolutely right: we must get our response times down to 24 hours. Bringing in localised control is an effort to do that.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Was my right hon. Friend told earlier of any recommendation to ban the use of pigswill? Does he agree that it is not sufficient for Governments to take scientific advice when a crisis occurs, but that Departments should have the means to seek out and respond appropriately to scientific advice that can anticipate problems, so that pre-emptive action can be taken before they arise? Will he ensure that his Department does so?

Mr. Brown: I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend sets out and I try to work to it when carrying out my ministerial responsibilities. I have taken particular note of the Phillips report recommendations, which are guiding me in our handling of the outbreak, even though we are dealing with an animal disease. She will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) told the House regarding advice about the recycling of mammalian meat. 1 confirm that that assurance is correct and that the Government were acting on scientific advice, even though it related to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies rather than to viral infections.

Mr. Michael Jack: Many farmers who are affected by this dreadful outbreak will be concerned about their position with regard to the payment of various moneys under Community livestock schemes. I understand that the Minister has had discussions about the matter with the European Commission. Will he report to the House on the progress that has been made? On the Seathwaite outbreak, can he give any indication about why the disease seems to have leapt a very long distance in a situation that he deems to be under control? Farmers in my part of Lancashire are now deeply worried that the disease can spread rapidly over long distances, and they are struggling to understand why.

Mr. Brown: I cannot give a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman about the spread of the disease,


except to say that it is highly unlikely to have been airborne, which narrows down the possibilities. With regard to livestock premiums, there are five separate premium schemes and I have the Commission's consent to the application of the force majeure rules. We have an agreement in principle, although one or two issues of detail still have to be sorted out in relation to inspections. However, the essential point is that the premiums will be paid and that the Commission is standing in our corner on the issue.

Mr. Simon Thomas: When the Minister considers vaccination, on which I welcome his comments, will he think about the positive effects that could be achieved for the tourism industry if it were introduced as a double-barrelled approach to the disease? For example, it could restore confidence in the northern part of my constituency. which has no foot and mouth cases, but is an infected area, and might allow tourism to return there. Finally, has MAFF made any assessment of the effect of census enumerators on the control of foot and mouth? I understand that their visits are due to occur at the end of April.

Mr. Brown: As I understand it, the census is not yet under way, but we are keeping the matter under review, as nothing should be done that would risk spreading the disease. That includes all inappropriate movements on and off farms. We have not announced a vaccination strategy, but as I said, we are actively considering it and contingency plans are being put into place. I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that I would talk to his constituents—the people who would be most affected—before anything was done. I hope that we can restore visitors and tourist business to the countryside. People can visit all sorts of things without going near farmed livestock, so it is not vaccination itself that would turn the situation around. However, if it played a part by happenstance, that would be welcome.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister spoke about a recovery programme for abattoirs. One step that he might care to take is to allow or encourage licensed abattoirs to participate in a welfare disposal scheme. As we heard from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), no such encouragement is currently provided. We will need these abattoirs after the epidemic is brought under control. They have spent a lot of money on their equipment and they are under-used, and proper encouragement would ensure their survival. As the over-30-months scheme allows meat for human consumption and cull meat to be dealt with in the same abattoir, why does not he take that necessary step?

Mr. Brown: We are encouraging abattoirs to participate in such a scheme, but it must be compatible with the other necessary restrictions on products that are entering the food chain. It is not intended that animals that are dealt with in the welfare scheme should proceed into the food chain, so we need to ensure separation. Do I know of any human health reason why that should be so? I must candidly tell the House that I do not.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I use this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking up the issue that I raised yesterday in a point of order. Members'

briefings have now appeared in the Opposition Whips Office, but I should like to reiterate the request for an MPs' hotline to enable us to deal immediately with all the urgent matters that our constituents are raising. In addition, I asked two weeks ago whether emergency powers were needed to achieve the necessary speed in implementing the strategy that the Minister has introduced. We now read reports from No. 10 that there is an admission that Cumbrian farmers with healthy stock that needs to be culled cannot be compelled to allow that to happen and must give their consent. Will he review whether emergency powers are required? That also involves the question of vaccination as an option in the context of the contingency planning, which I welcome.
Finally, rather than just giving holding answers, will the Minister consider responding to my questions about when the inception of the disease in this country took place?
These are important issues. As I am sure the Minister agrees, they affect the epidemiology and, perhaps, the strategy that is used in treating the on-going epidemic.

Mr. Brown: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's last question in my statement. As for the daily report to Members, it has always been available in the Library. I had intended that Members should be able to obtain it through their party Whips Offices; I am sorry if there has been a breakdown in the process, but if there has, it results from no act of mine.
We are considering establishing a Members' hotline through the Cabinet Office communication network. I hope that an announcement can be made about that in a few days.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Cheshire is one of the top three cattle counties in the United Kingdom. Between 9 am and 1 pm today, 240 cattle belonging to my constituent Anthony Dale were shot on Shirdfold farm in Adlington. They were shot before the existence of foot and mouth disease had been confirmed: indeed, it still has not been confirmed. This was a pre-emptive cull, very much along the lines advocated by the Minister.
My farmers are experiencing problems in dealing with MAFF and the MAFF vet at Stafford—in getting hold of people, and in being given decisions. Following the shooting of 240 cattle, the immediate problem is disposal. Those on the farm want to bury them there, and people and equipment are available to enable that to be done. Will the Minister ensure that those responsible have the ability to make a decision?

Mr. Brown: Those responsible do have that ability. I will ensure that the individual case raised by the hon. Gentleman is examined as a matter of urgency. There is no ideological reason not to allow on-farm burial, but there may be other reasons that I do not know about. The most obvious is the water table; I do not know what the position is in that regard.
It is because there may be reasons that I do not know about that we have Environment Agency officials in our control centres—there is a new one in Stafford, as the hon. Gentleman said—looking into the issue. In the case of cattle aged over 30 months, there is also the question


of BSE prions. A range of matters must be taken into account. This is not just bureaucratic delay; we have to worry about all those matters.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that farmers genuinely want to co-operate with culls, but are enormously frustrated by, on occasion, not being part of the consultation loop for local cull plans? Will he commit himself to reviewing the procedures, in order to help farmers—including those in mid-Wales - to be as co-operative as they can?
Will the Minister also address himself to the specific issue of the Rogers pig farm, which has 2,000 head of pigs? That means the infectivity equivalent of 6 million cattle, in the heart of an infected area. I fear that it represents a time bomb for mid-Wales, and also for the west midlands. Will the Minister please ask his staff to review the issue, and to proceed with a cull as soon as possible—preferably tomorrow?

Mr. Brown: These are incredibly difficult issues. Enormous risks are associated with intensive pig farming. I think that a farm in Wales would fall within the competence of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Secretary in the Welsh Assembly; I expect to talk to him on the telephone later, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to his attention.
As for communications, representatives of the National Farmers Union are working with officials from my Ministry in Carlisle and Devon, which helps. There are also regular meetings with representatives of local farmers, a practice that I would like to see replicated more generally.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister has rightly expressed concern about infection caused by illegally imported meat. According to the chairman of the East Anglian branch of the National Pig Association, the Minister was informed in a letter dated 20 May last year from Mr. Clive Lawrence of Ciel Logistics that gross abuses were involved in illegal imports of meat for personal use from African countries through Heathrow. There were, apparently, examples of baggage leaking, and of rotting deer and monkey carcases. What did the Minister do about that, when he was informed? Have there been further such incidents? What checks can put in place to reassure the House?

Mr. Brown: I think that the material to which the right hon. Lady referred was seized by the authorities—in this case, Customs and Excise. However, I shall look at the specific complaint that she has raised.
The right hon. Lady is right that there are more general issues that relate to the importation of surprisingly large quantities of meat for personal use and to the use of container transportation to bring meat that is not always accurately described into the country. Both those matters need to be looked at, with regard not only to the effectiveness of the law—I do not think that that is the problem—but to the effectiveness of the inspection regime. We must ensure that the intervention powers are adequate in the current circumstances, and they may well

not be. If they are not, I shall come back to the House, and I expect that I should get all-party support in dealing with the problem.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has announced a consultation on the 20-day standstill. That might be a very sensible thing to do. Will he however, approach the consultation with a genuinely open mind? He will appreciate that he does not have to come to an immediate conclusion on the 20-day standstill. He will also appreciate that the advice that he is receiving on the matter comes from a fairly narrow source. I make no criticism of that, but the source is narrow. He will appreciate further that such a proposal would interfere with legitimate business. Finally, is he aware that it might constitute a barrier to the free trade in goods that is an EU requirement?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point was a fair one. They were all fair points, but the last one was particularly so. On that point, I want to assert the disease control imperative over the more general rule of the free movement of goods and services. After all, the 20-day standstill rule would apply to everyone; it would not be discriminatory. I shall approach the consultation with an open mind, and when he examines the consultation document, he will see that—certainly as far as cattle are concerned—because of the traceability scheme in this country, there are options. I genuinely welcome views on all the options.

Mr. Michael Howard: May I turn the Minister's attention to the suspect cases at Uffington referred to by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser)? Is the Minister aware that a number of my constituents have animals—lambing ewes and cattle approaching the 30-month threshold—on land in the vicinity of Uffington ? Will he at least tell local vets and farmers who believe that those suspect cases were not confirmed whether they are right in that belief? If they are right, will he explain to them why licences previously granted to them have been revoked, and why they cannot now move their animals?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an answer here and now, because I do not have sufficient Knowledge of the case. I shall write to him setting out my formal response, and I promise to examine the letter personally before it is sent to him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been answering questions for more than an hour. I think that we must now move on.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Previous Speakers, when faced with a difficult situation such as this, involving many hon. Members trying to speak, have said that either they or their secretary would very kindly keep a list of those who failed to get in, so that next time there was a statement,


they might be given priority. Several hon. Members have been trying for some time to ask questions without being called.

Mr. Speaker: That goes without saying. In fact, the hon. Gentleman might have noticed that in the early stages I called hon. Members who were not called at the previous statement, some of whom are still present.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I request that those of us who were not called on the previous three occasions could call for an Adjournment debate at the earliest convenience?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can apply; I do not make any promises.

BILLS PRESENTED

LOCAL ELECTIONS (FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Eric Illsley, presented a Bill to provide for the free delivery of one election address to each household from each candidate in the local government elections to be held in May 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 72].

REPRESENTATION OF GIBRALTAR AT WESTMINSTER AND IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, presented a Bill to provide for representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; for the inclusion of Gibraltar in a European parliamentary constituency; for the right of the chief minister to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 73].

PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Tony Benn and Mr. Eric Illsley. presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 74].

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) (No. 2)

Mr. Christopher Gill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union.
It is no secret that while I have concluded that Britain's best interests would be served by withdrawing from the European Union, I have to point out that that is neither the position nor the policy of the party that I represent in Parliament. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, is on record as saying that he would never take Britain out of the EU and the official policy of the Conservative party is still that we remain in Europe, but not run by Europe.
There are undoubtedly other parliamentarians who would, were they free agents, support my wish to leave the EU and, it has to be said, millions of our fellow countrymen would applaud such a move, so surely the time has come to strike a balance—to ascertain as nearly as is humanly possible exactly where the balance of advantage lies. That is the purpose of the Bill. It would establish a committee of inquiry that would impartially investigate the pros and cons of our membership of the EU and report back to the House its findings so that we might be in a position to consider the full implications and ramifications of withdrawal.
Just over 12 months ago, I embarrassed my shadow Cabinet colleagues by asking them individually to let me know what they perceived to be the benefits of Britain's membership of the EU. They decided that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), then shadow Foreign Secretary, should be deputed to respond. I have his letter of 18 November 1999 in front of me.
Right hon. and hon. Members who follow the European debate will not be surprised that my hon. Friend's response relied not so much on fact as on assertion—for example, that membership of the EU has
been of great benefit to the UK
and that it
is vital for British trade".
Furthermore, he stated:
The internal market has been of real value for British business and for foreign direct investment in the UK.
He went on to say that, as a consequence of our EU membership,
Britons are able to live or work anywhere they like in the EU, with practically no restrictions.
He also said that, in terms of world trade liberalisation, our membership
gives us collectively far greater bargaining power".
My hon. Friend, who is also a former shadow Secretary of State for Defence, further asserted that one should not ignore the EU's contribution to European security—an aspect of our membership that has an increasingly hollow ring to it as our so-called European partners do their best to undermine the transatlantic alliance and to establish an EU defence organisation in competition with NATO, which has so successfully kept the peace in Europe since 1949.
In responding to me on behalf of all his shadow Cabinet colleagues, my hon. Friend relied heavily on assertion, and one should not be surprised by that. The whole debate thus far has been conducted on the basis of unsubstantiated assertion. It has indeed been a fact-free zone. The advocates of European integration have consistently advanced their cause by making a series of unproven assertions and, what is more, they have learned to make those assertions in forums where, as often as not, they cannot be challenged.
However, if there is a party represented in Parliament that should understand better than any other the hazard of making major political decisions based on assertions rather than fact, it is the Conservative party. In October 1990, based on the glib but unquantifiable assertions that interest rates would be lower, unemployment would be reduced and economic growth rates would improve, the Conservative Government took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism. The result, as hon. Members will recall, was that the United Kingdom was forced to abandon the ERM 23 months later because interest rates had risen to record levels—15 per cent. on the afternoon of Black Wednesday—unemployment had soared from 1.67 million in 1990 to 2.85 million in 1992 and, far from experiencing economic growth, thousands lost their businesses and even more had their homes repossessed.
For the Conservative party, it has been downhill in the opinion polls ever since, all because we accepted at face value the bogus assertions that continue to dominate the debate. On 17 April 2000, at column 733 in Hansard, I challenged my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is a staunch advocate of economic and monetary union and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He clearly did not know that, behind the assertion that EU membership is "vital for Britain's trade" lay the fact that our trade with Europe represents less than 11 per cent. of gross domestic product. I have the figures to prove it, and as I come from a business background, I stress that it is advisable and customary to carry out a cost benefit analysis before embarking on any project. However, successive Governments have failed to do precisely that. Indeed, when requested to do so, they have refused point blank.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy that position and seek the approval of Parliament for the establishment of a committee of inquiry, which would be charged with presenting a properly considered and costed report that dealt exclusively with the implications of withdrawal from the EU.
That exercise has already been carried out in at least one other country. I refer specifically to a recent study entitled "The Impact on the US Economy of including the

UK in a Free Trade Arrangement with the USA, Canada and Mexico". It concluded that the UK's balance of trade will worsen at the rate to of $1 billion per annum in the EU, whereas it would actually improve by a hefty $5 billion per annum outside it.
Let me make it clear that the committee of inquiry would be charged with considering not only the economic but also the constitutional and practical implications of withdrawal. One accepts that it is difficult to put a price upon the value of self-governance, but clearly it is an important part of the overall consideration.
The committee of inquiry might do worse than seek the opinions of those in any one of the 50 or more dominions, colonies and overseas possessions of the former British empire, to which Parliament has, in the past 70 years, granted full independence. It seems probable that, regardless of size and notwithstanding the poverty of some countries, and the political trials and tribulations of others, there would be little or no demand for a return to rule by London. The committee might also consider the experience of those parts of the former empire where federal Governments were established and the reasons for their fairly peremptory demise.
Hon. Members will be aware of the many calls in recent years for a proper debate about our future relationship with the EU. The Bill would enable that debate to be conducted on the basis of fact rather than assertion. Making available factual information, free from political bias and Government spin, would be inestimably valuable to the general public. They have every right to demand the facts, not least because, in the final analysis, they will pay the price, not only literally through their taxes, but with their historic right to live in a self-governing nation under laws made by people whom they elect to their British Parliament here in Westminster.
I trust that the House will accept the logic of my case and allow the Bill to progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Gill, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. William Thompson, Mr. John Townend, and Mr. Charles Wardle

EUROPEAN UNION (IMPLICATIONS OF WITHDRAWAL) (No. 2)

Mr. Christopher Gill accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 
Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 75].

Orders of the Day — Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill marks a further step in our drive to tackle fraud and error as part of our wider reforms of the welfare state. As the House will know, we inherited a social security system in which spending had doubled between 1979 and 1997, but at the same time, child poverty had trebled and the number of households with children with no one in work was the highest in Europe. Spending had doubled because of economic failure. It is now under control for the first time in three decades. That is because we are getting more people into work but also as a result of tighter gateways to the benefit system
We also inherited a benefit system that was losing more in fraud and error than it cost to run the entire Department of Social Security. That is the legacy of 18 years of Conservative Government. They did not even attempt to measure fraud for the first 15 years and they did precious little to stop it for their entire 18 years in office. No business would put up with that, and neither should we.
Stopping fraud and error is essential. For example, we have already saved £1 billion during this Parliament by halving the number of income support claims paid out with insufficient evidence. We are prosecuting and sanctioning more people than ever before. Last year, the figure was 22,000, which is 60 per cent. up on the previous year. Those sanctions cost people 100 per cent. of the benefit that they wrongly take plus an additional 30 per cent. That's the price that they pay for doing so.
Fraud not only takes money away from where it is needed most—money that would be far better spent on schools and hospitals or invested in transport—but, crucially, the presence of fraud in the system undermines public support for the social security system. If people see others cheating and getting away with it, they lose confidence in the system. That is one of the reasons for our determination to put a stop to benefit fraud and bear down on error in the system. The Bill is a further step towards doing just that.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the latest benefit fraud review measuring the level of fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance shows that the level of confirmed fraud is higher this year than last year?

Mr. Darling: It shows that there has been the first ever significant fall in fraud in the payment of income support and JSA. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was never able to say that during the previous Parliament in all his time as Secretary of State for Social Security. As I have made it clear to the House on many occasions, I do not say that we have beaten fraud and error in the system. We have not, but we have begun to turn the corner. The 6.4 per cent. reduction

in fraud in JSA and income support is the first significant fall that we have ever seen in those two benefits in the social security system. That is a significant achievement. and we need to build on it as we move towards meeting our target of halving the amount of fraud and error in the system in the next five to six years.

Mr. Lilley: I have just checked the Secretary of State's claim. The Library confirms that the level of confirmed fraud has not fallen. It is only by including errors that the right hon. Gentleman is able to claim a decline. Will he now set the record straight and confirm that when he said "fraud", he was mistaken. He meant that "fraud plus errors" has gone down; the incidence of fraud alone has gone up.

Mr. Darling: When asked about these matters, I repeatedly use the term "fraud and error". [Interruption.] I do. The right hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks back at what I have said over the past few years about fraud and error, that I have given equal importance to stopping both of them. I mentioned, for example—the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in this as he was Secretary of State for Social Security for the whole of the last Parliament—that when we came into office, two out of every five income support cases were being paid without sufficient evidence to justify them. We have halved that figure, saving £1 billion. That figure was almost certainly all due to error in the system.
We have also seen reductions in fraud. The reduction of fraud and error in the system, particularly in JSA and income support, is statistically significant. It is the first time that it has ever happened. The right hon. Gentleman could never have announced such a reduction when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, during the whole of the previous Parliament.

Mr. Lilley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: I will give way later on.

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mr. Darling: I am happy to stay here all night, or however long modernisation allows us to stay these days.
Two years ago, we set ourselves the target of reducing fraud and error in JSA and income support by 10 per cent. All the evidence is that we are already on target to do that and that we will go beyond it in our drive to reduce fraud and error in the system—particularly fraud in income support and JSA.

Mr. Lilley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden when I have finished my point, if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) does not mind.
I am happy to say again and again that we attach significant importance to the reduction of fraud and error. We are achieving it—something that the right hon. Gentleman could never say during his time as Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. Lilley: The Secretary of State has now admitted that he was wrong when he said that fraud had declined—


it is fraud plus error. He then went on to say that the reduction was statistically significant. The Library research document says that the small fall in confirmed fraud and error is not statistically significant. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement?

Mr. Darling: I certainly will not. The fall is statistically significant, and I attach considerable importance to it. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that during his entire time as Secretary of State for Social Security, for the whole of the previous Parliament, he could never, ever point to a single success in reducing fraud and error in JSA, income support or, indeed, anything else. As he well knows, because I think that he sometimes had to struggle with his colleagues in the Department, it was not until 1995—halfway through his stewardship as Secretary of State—that he started to measure fraud in the system. I note that he acknowledges that. As we know, that was 15 years after the Tory Government had been elected.
Despite everything that the Tories said and despite all the right hon. Gentleman's conference speeches—the more ludicrous of which we remember—he did not even start to measure fraud in the system until 1995. It was not until 1997 that real, concrete measures were taken to cut fraud and error in the system. We have seen the first significant fall in fraud and error in the jobseeker's allowance and income support, which the right hon. Gentleman never achieved during his time as Secretary of State.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I suppose so.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, even though he is in a particularly irascible mood today. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the regulations on loss of benefit covered in clause 11 on pages 15 and 16 will be subject to the negative procedure and will not, therefore, be able to be debated on the Floor of the House? If that is so, and given the importance of getting those regulations right, will the Secretary of State undertake to provide a draft of the regulations before the Bill completes its passage?

Mr. Darling: It is always open to the House to debate regulations. The arrangements for doing so are made through the usual channels, either upstairs or on the Floor of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that it is important to ensure that regulations, no matter what they are for, are correct. If he has concerns about that, the scope of the regulations can no doubt be debated at length during tonight's debate or in Committee.

Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: Is it on that point?

Mr. Webb: It is on the previous point.

Mr. Darling: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Webb: The Secretary of State was talking about the Government's record on tackling fraud. I certainly

accept that the previous Government did little until late in the day. However, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the Audit Commission's finding that between the second and third years of his term in office the amount of housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities fell? Why did he allow that to happen?

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the business of measuring and detecting housing benefit fraud has been a concern to successive Governments. About two years ago, we changed the way in which we rewarded local authorities. The situation that we inherited from the Conservative Government was that local authorities were rewarded for the fraud that they found. As the National Audit Office identified. authorities tended almost to let fraud come into the system, then detected it and claimed the reward.
Two years ago, we changed the system so that the emphasis was put on preventing fraud from coming into the system in the first place. The approach was different—indeed, it is an approach that the NAO endorsed and it is far better. Of course, it is important to deal with fraud once it is detected, but the emphasis in the Government's strategy—it should be local authority strategy on housing benefit too—is to prevent fraud from coming into the system.
The problem that we inherited was one of wrong incentives—the incentive almost to allow fraud in. We have replaced it With measures that are designed to prevent it from getting into the system in the first place. The National Audit office has endorsed that approach and said so in the subsequent report to the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We are beginning to see the results of the reforms that we have made. There is a clear choice: we either continue with the drive against fraud and error, or we return to the previous situation in the Department, with cuts in investment and staffing that helped fraud and error to enter the system in the first place. Indeed, in the past four years, we have put in place many reforms that were needed to tighten the benefit system across the board: tighter rules and greater conditionality in the system and tighter gateways, but all backed by investment to enable the job to be done.
That investment is critical. We have invested in front-line staff to check and keep claims right. That investment would be under threat if the Conservatives were returned to power because the £16 billion in cuts to which they remain committed and the policy of freezing civil service recruitment would in one year cost more than 5,000 front-line jobs in the Benefits Agency. If anyone is in any doubt, it is those front-line staff who make the difference when it comes to the amount of fraud and error in the system. They check the claims and the facts. Year after year when the Conservatives were in power, the staff were able to spend less and less time checking benefit claims due to staff outs. As I said in a reply to the former Secretary of State, one reason why we have reduced the error rate in income support is that we have more staff on the front line and fewer posts in Whitehall, so we are able to check claims far more efficiently.
Secondly, we ire investing in computers and information technology, which is also important. It is something to which the NAO has repeatedly drawn attention. We inherited a system in which some of the


computers on which staff were expected to work were more than 30 years old. Sometimes, our staff go home to find their children working on systems that are more efficient and up to date than some of those that the Conservatives left and expected them to work on. After years of underinvestment, following the spending review last year, we now have the money to replace all of the Department's ageing IT equipment so that our staff have the tools to do the job.
The Bill will enable us to make better use of that technology. Again, that is investment in staff and IT, which the Conservatives oppose. It would all be at risk if they were returned to power because they cannot say that they are going to spend £16 billion—or more—less than Labour, but at the same time pretend that they would maintain our levels of investment in the system. That investment is essential if the system is to be tighter and more robust against fraud and error.
We are also investing in tighter gateways to benefit. The new working age agency will introduce regular interviews for all claimants of working age, helping people to get into work. There will be new rights and responsibilities, but the whole time we will be checking that the right benefit is paid to the right person.
We are also investing to tackle organised fraud. The fight against such fraud is now controlled centrally, which did not happen before, and a new national intelligence unit will ensure that resources are far better targeted than they were.
No doubt tonight we will be told by the Conservatives that they want to set up another national organisation. They claim that by setting up a national benefits squad, they will somehow save £1 billion, just like that. There is no independent evidence to support the claim. If ever there was a fraudulent claim, that is it. I read in The Independent at Christmas, under the heading, "How I will cut public spending to provide money for lower taxes", an article by the shadow Chancellor, who wrote:
For instance, we're going to set up a single benefits investigation squad … Common sense measures like these will yield at least £1 billion in savings".
He says that by setting up one benefits squad he will save £1 billion. Presumably, if he set up two, he would save £2 billion.
I will be interested to find out in the debate if the present Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), can give us one concrete example of how by simply setting up a national investigation squad, the shadow Chancellor can save £1 billion just like that. The Conservatives did not do it in 18 years and I will be interested to hear how they think that they can claim all that money just like that. It is important to them because they have already spent the £1 billion. If they cannot find it, the consequences will be dire.

Mr. John Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Darling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman from the Back Benches can tell us how the Conservatives will save all that money.

Mr. Butterfill: The right hon. Gentleman talks about unsubstantiated assertions. I remind him that in a letter to me of 28 November he said that the new IT systems would save more than £1 billion by 2005. That claim is

unsubstantiated too. How does he substantiate that figure? I have no doubt that he will make some savings, but how he substantiates his claim I am not clear.

Mr. Darling: The point about IT is simple. The systems that we inherited from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported are ageing and will not last much longer. It is not an option simply not to replace them. It is not good enough for an organisation such as the Department of Social Security, which pays out more than £100 billion a year, to rely on IT systems that are 20 or 30 years old. The system needs to be replaced. If we do not do so, there will certainly be more errors in the system and it will be more and more difficult to track fraud.
One of the advantages of the new equipment will be, for example, that if someone claims a benefit in one office and then tries to do so in another office, the information will immediately be cross-matched. The clerk will know that someone has done so. The present system does not allow that.
My argument is straightforward. Replacing the IT systems in the DSS is essential. The NAO has drawn attention to the need to do so for about 12 years. It qualified the accounts of the Benefits Agency for years under the Conservative Government and one reason was that the IT system for keeping track of the amount of money paid out was not up to scratch. We have the money to replace the system. If the Tories were elected again, their guarantee of £16 billion in cuts would mean that the money would not be there to replace the system.

Mr. Butterfill: I entirely agree that it is desirable—indeed essential—to install that equipment. That was not my point. I was merely saying that the right hon. Gentleman had not substantiated the figure that he gave me. I have no doubt that he will make savings, but he said that the shadow Chancellor had not substantiated his figures and I was saying that he makes similar claims without any basis for doing so.

Mr. Darling: I said that the Government will reach the target that they set for a 50 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in JSA and income support. That will be done through a variety of means: tighter gateways to the system, more investment in IT, and ensuring that we have the staff on the front line to check claims. The approach involves a variety of measures, all of which will bear down on fraud.
I repeat that we have, for the first time, seen a significant reduction in fraud and error in income support and the jobseeker's allowance. The Conservatives could never claim that during their time in office. Again, I repeat that they did not even begin to measure fraud and error in the system until 15 years after they were elected. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friends. As has been pointed out from the Opposition Front Bench, we have all night—or at least several hours—and I am happy to stay in the Chamber talking about fraud and error for the whole time.
I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Havant. He, too, will have plenty of time for his speech; if necessary, I shall persuade my colleagues to sit tight until he has explained how, simply by setting up a national benefits squad, the Tories will save £1 billion that they have already spent. That is their claim; that is their promise. They say that they will save £1 billion, yet they have already spent it—several times in fact. It will be interesting to hear how they intend to magic up £1 billion—just like that.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; I have no intention of keeping him here well into the night. On more than one occasion, he has visited Warbreck house—the disability living allowance unit headquarters—in Blackpool, in my constituency. During his visits, did he see the computer pilot project that is under way? It is already paying dividends—to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Decision—making DLA staff already find that the new computers in the pilot enable them to operate much more efficiently. Those staff are dealing with many more cases; they are looking forward to the installation in the autumn of more computers throughout the building, so that they can offer the efficient service to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Darling: I confirm that, as and when new IT is delivered throughout the Department, quality of service improves. Anyone who visited a Benefits Agency office—or indeed Warbreck house—was struck by the quantity of paperwork. Comparison with banks or other financial institutions, which are often paper free, will show just how far we have had to travel. It is a testament to the neglect of the Tories that, during their 18 years in office, they did nothing to replace the tools with which staff were meant to do their job.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely lucky locally, because officials in the local offices of the Benefits Agency treat claimants with commendable civility. What resources and training are to be given to local officials charged with the responsibility of recovering payments made in error? I hope that we shall move beyond the usual letter sent to claimants. Will my right hon. Friend look afresh at how such persons are treated when they have received overpayments due to errors made by local staff?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The quality of the letters sent out by the antique computer systems leaves much to be desired. Some of those letters were insensitive and inappropriate; for example, we are changing the letters sent to people who have recently been bereaved.
If the Department makes a mistake, it should put its hand up and admit it. Equally, where an individual has made a mistake or, in some cases, has been downright untruthful, that individual has to accept the consequences. I shall explain some of the measures that will help in such cases. Staff try to behave appropriately, according to the circumstances.
We are implementing a further measure that will make a difference in dealing with fraud. In two years, we shall increasingly pay benefits directly into bank accounts as the normal method of payment. That will save about £100 million a year on losses through order book and giro fraud. The Conservatives did nothing much about that during their time in office although they did come up with the benefit card—as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would no doubt have jumped up to tell me if I had not pointed it out. That was, of course, another Tory disaster. It did not work; it was behind time; there was a cost overrun and it had to be scrapped. Despite that, the Conservatives are against our plans to pay money directly into people's bank accounts; at least that is my understanding—it is not always easy to make out exactly where they stand. When one considers their strategy, one is struck by the fact that they do not have one credible policy that would work and deliver savings.
We are making progress. We have a strategy that is beginning to bear fruit, but we need to do more to meet our targets. The Bill is the next stage of our reforms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I know that the Conservatives do not like to hear about their shortcomings—about all the things that they failed to do during their time in office. However, when people come to make a choice as to who is best equipped to keep social security spending under control, they will contrast the Conservative party, which allowed that spending to double over 18 years—despite the rhetoric and the conference speeches—with the Labour Government who have kept social security spending growth at its lowest since the second world war. At the same time. we can spend more on families, pensioners and children because we are not spending so much on waste and failure. We are spending on our priorities.
The Bill builds on some of the recommendations made by Lord Grabiner in the report that we commissioned in 1999. We have already implemented many of his recommendations; for example, we have extended nationwide the tighter procedure for the issue of national insurance numbers that we successfully piloted in an area of London. The tighter procedures in that pilot area resulted in more than 300 arrests and the refusal of more than 4,500 applications that might well have been granted if the procedures that we inherited had still been in force. Tightening up on the issuing of NI numbers—also something that the previous Conservative Government failed to do—is central to ensuring that we cut that fraud.
The Grabiner report recommended measures in two further areas that will need the new powers set out in the Bill. First, the Benefits Agency and local authorities need new powers to obtain information from third parties in cases of suspected fraud. Those measures are set out in clauses 1 and 2—I shall return to them shortly.
Secondly, we need to send a clear signal to the hard core of people who carry on cheating the system even when they have been caught. That will not be tolerated. Those who are convicted twice of fraud will lose their benefit—as is set out in clauses 7 to 13. Clause 15 introduces new penalties to crack down on those employers who colude with their employees to commit benefit fraud. Those penalties will offer an alternative to the sometimes more costly court proceedings.
We also need to combat transnational benefit fraud, whereby people fraudulently claim benefit in more than one country or use foreign identities to claim benefit in


this country. A more routine exchange of information will help to identify such crimes more quickly. Clause 5 will allow benefits agencies to supply information to other countries in cases where adequate safeguards exist.
Clause 16 will toughen the offence of failure to report a change of circumstances while claiming benefit. That is one of the biggest sources of fraud in the system.
The Bill has, of course, been scrutinised in another place. Today, I shall concentrate on three main aspects: the power to check the facts where fraud is suspected; the "two strikes and you're out" policy; and the penalties in relation to collusive employers.
First, I shall deal with the measures to provide access to independent information about a claimant's circumstances. The problem is that for far too long the system has had to deal with people who, when it came to the crunch, knew full well that the Department could not check what they had told it. That will change. If we are to succeed in rooting fraud out of the system, we need to be able to cross—check the information that people give us. It is in everybody's interest—individuals and businesses—to ensure that people will be found out when they cheat the system or do not tell the truth.
Almost half of the fraud in two key benefits—the JSA and income support—is due to people failing to tell the truth about their incomes, earnings or capital. The Benefits Agency must have the ability to check where it suspects fraud; and, where it is faced with someone who refuses to cooperate, it needs to require banks or other financial institutions to provide the facts necessary to enable it to discover the true position. The powers for the Benefits Agency and for councils to get information from specified organisations are set out in the Bill.
The use of these powers will be tightly controlled. There will be a limited number of authorised and named officers who can use these powers; I propose to authorise 175 initially, but that figure will rise to 300 officers at 14 principal units across the country.
Clause 3 introduces a statutory code of practice, which sets out for all to see the way in which the powers will be used. We shall consult on that code and it will be laid before Parliament. A draft of the code is available to Members in the Library. The powers will allow only authorised officers to obtain records relevant to a suspected fraud. These powers will also help with housing benefit fraud where a landlord or a tenant claims benefit for someone who is living somewhere else.

Mr. Bercow: In order to maximise the efficacy and the equity of the information-gathering process, what practical cognisance has the right hon. Gentleman taken of the Taxes Management Act 1970?

Mr. Darling: That Act can be of some help, but, in so far as our proposals are concerned, we are giving authorised officers, where they suspect fraud, the power to get information from credit reference agencies or banks to find out whether someone has a bank account and, where the circumstances justify it, what payments might have been made in respect of it.
The DSS and its respective agencies already have powers in specified circumstances to exchange information with, and to get information from, the Inland Revenue because increasingly, and for obvious reasons, the DSS deals with people who have contact with both

the Revenue and the Department; but all the time these matters are regulated. They are specified, because it is important to balance giving the Department the additional powers that it needs with the rights of individuals generally, and individuals in particular, to ensure that their individual rights are not impinged on.
A person's right to privacy is very important indeed, but the Department is entitled to set that aside where it has reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud. There are safeguards. I want to ensure that the officers who are entitled to obtain this information are identified. They will be supervised, and there will be many checks to ensure that there is no abuse of the system, and that the information is not wrongly used. But the hon. Member for Buckingham is right to say that, increasingly, the DSS and its agencies and the Inland Revenue need to work together. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 is one measure that allows them to do so; I am sorry that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who served on the Committee considering that legislation opposed it so strongly.

Mr. Butterfill: I gather that some bodies have suggested that there could be problems with the Data Protection Act 1998. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is now entirely satisfied that there will be no problem with that Act?

Mr. Darling: I certainly can. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to sign a certificate under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as is stated on the front of the Bill, but I can also tell the House that the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for these matters, recently wrote to me to say that her concerns have been addressed. I believe it is important to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the public as a whole, to ensure that the system is not abused. I think that we have achieved that balance. There is the code of practice, which the hon. Gentleman may have had the opportunity to read. It is in the Library, and its authority is on the face of the Bill. That is very important.

Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State place in the Library a copy of the letter that he has received from the Data Protection Commissioner?

Mr. Darling: Yes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have referred to the letter had I not been confident of what it said, and that I am more than happy to send it to him. The Information Commissioner did have concerns when the Bill was at an early stage, and she wrote several times. I had a useful meeting with her, her staff met DSS staff and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. My understanding is that, as the letter says, the commissioner is now satisfied that we have addressed her concerns, but I am more than happy to make the letter available to the hon. Gentleman and, as he has raised it, to place a copy in the Library.
I should like to talk briefly about the second strand that I referred to—that of removing benefit where people are convicted twice of benefit fraud. It is important that two things happen. First, more effort must be put into


changing people's attitudes to benefit fraud. Too often, we meet people who say that benefit fraud does not really matter.

Mr. Bercow: I do not think so.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may not meet people like that, but I think that most of us do. I sometimes wonder who the hon. Gentleman does meet when he is outside the House. He and I would probably agree that we are probably very unlike each other. I certainly do come across people who say that benefit fraud is not really a problem—just as, some 20 or 30 years ago, people did not think that drinking and driving was really a crime. It was not uncommon, 20 or 30 years ago—although, I may say, I was quite young at the time—to find people who would think nothing of offering a drink to someone whom they knew would be driving afterwards. I believe that the same cultural change is necessary for benefit fraud.
I know that the Opposition have complained about the advertising campaign that is currently being run on television, but Governments need to focus on getting people to think about benefit fraud and its consequences, because every penny that is lost in benefit fraud could be better spent elsewhere.
It is necessary to go further and to make it clear to people that, if they abuse their responsibilities, they cannot expect to go back on benefit as though nothing had happened; so in the Bill we propose to implement the policy, first raised in Lord Grabiner's report, of "two strikes and you're out". If people are convicted of benefit fraud twice within three years, they will lose their benefit. That policy may be tough, but it is necessary to deal with persistent offenders.
People do have choices. They do not have to fiddle the system; the vast majority of people do not. As I have said before, there is no unconditional right to benefit. There are rights and there are responsibilities. I believe that this policy is justified and will build on policies that we have already implemented with regard to the new deal.
The hon. Member for Havant asked me about the Information Commissioner. I detected a suggestion that I might have said something that might not have represented the whole position. I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has given me the letter from the Information Commissioner. I shall quote part of it, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he may have all of it.
The commissioner wrote to me on 20 March. She said:
I have now had the opportunity to consider the government amendments which your officials kindly sent to
one of her officials. She continued:
1 am pleased that they seem successfully to address the concerns which I expressed to you in the course of our meeting.
She went on to say that the official previously named
has now written to
one of our departmental officials
to this effect.
The letter is fairly short and fairly straightforward, but I shall certainly send it to the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to receiving his acknowledgment of receipt, so that there is no doubt about it.
I shall say a brief word on collusive employers. My predecessor as Secretary of State shared my frustration that sometimes the court system has not been as efficient or as enthusiastic as we might like in dealing robustly with people who have been guilty of benefit fraud. The Bill therefore gives us powers to impose penalties for the less serious cases, where a penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 can be imposed on employers who are guilty of collusion in relation to benefits. The use of these civil penalties will make it easier and far more efficient to send a clear message to people who are fiddling the system.
All the new powers that we have taken in the Bill are necessary because they add to the materials that we have at our disposal to continue to bear down on fraud in the system and to cut down on error.
We have changed the social security system to bring in more choices, mote help and more support than ever before, but that is matched by a responsibility on individuals to help themselves and, crucially, to deal honestly with the system. The measures that we have introduced will build on what we have already achieved and will help to stop fraud in future, so we have made a start. We have set clear targets, which the Conservatives never did. We have imposed tighter gateways, which the Conservatives never did. We have seen the first significant fall in fraud and error. As always, I accept that there is a lot more to do, but we shall stop fraud and error only if we continue to invest in front-line staff and in information technology.
The Conservative party is pledged to cut more than £16 billion of public expenditure, so if it were returned to office, those front-line jobs would go, the investment in IT would be cut and, as a result, more fraud and more error would pour back into the system, just as happened during the 18 years when it was in power. The Bill will take our reforms a step further. It will ensure that staff have the powers that they need to check the information needed to stop fraud and to send a clear signal to those who persistently cheat the system that doing so is unacceptable.

Mr. Webb: As the Secretary of State usually leaves the Chamber before I make my speech, I want to raise an issue with him before he does so. Retirement pension is not included in the list of sanctionable benefits because, according to Baroness Hollis, retirement pensioners tend not to commit fraud, but war pensions are included. Is not that an insult to war pensioners?

Mr. Darling: No, it is not. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants us to include pensions, but the figures simply do not justify doing so. That is why I do not propose to include them. He is right on one point: I do not normally remain to hear what he has to say because of circumstances beyond my control, and I am sorry to tell him that tonight will be no exception. For reasons that I understand, earlier business in the House has meant that this debate started a lot later than I thought it would, and many people are awaiting my presence at some stage. However, if the hon. Gentleman is called to speak early enough—or even late enough—I dare say that I shall hear him speak, but I am sure that he will take it on the chin and not get too upset if I do not.
I have no doubt that many other hon. Members will wish to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I want to conclude by making one important point.


There is a lot of talk and rhetoric about fraud and error in the social security system, but the difference between this Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition is that we have a strategy that is working; they do not have a strategy that works. They do not have a single credible proposal that would save a single pound in tackling benefit fraud. They have no strategy whatever. We are beginning to turn the corner. We are beginning to see the results. We are cutting fraud; they could not because they do not have the measures to do so. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Willetts: The Bill has, of course, been thoroughly debated and heavily revised in another place in response to constructive suggestions from my right hon. Friends and others. I shall quote the final remark in the final day's debate in the other place. The Minister said:
I am delighted that the Bill has gone through without Division, though with substantive change. I hope that it is treated in the same conciliatory and positive way in the other place." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 340.]
I am afraid that, instead of the Secretary of State following the advice of his colleague, we had a taste of what the hustings might be like on a wet Wednesday in Edinburgh, Central. Instead of an attempt to explain in any detail exactly how the Government believe they can use the Bill to tackle welfare fraud effectively, we heard a rather feeble attempt at a warm-up speech for the election campaign.
Let me make it clear to the Secretary of State that we believe that the Bill is better than nothing, especially now that it has been revised and significantly improved in another place. We believe that it is a step in the right direction, so we shall not divide the House on Second Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): A ringing endorsement.

Mr. Willetts: The Opposition certainly want social security fraud to be reduced, and, especially with the amendments that have been made to it, the Bill represents a useful step in that direction.
While we are in a mood of positive endorsements, perhaps I can make a personal comment about the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as this may be our final debate on social security before the House rises to fight the election—although I know that oral questions will take place next week. The Minister of State is retiring from the House, so in case this is his last full outing in a debate in the Chamber, perhaps I can say that the Opposition have always appreciated the opportunity to debate with him. He has made a significant contribution to pensions policy. He arrived from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so he was able to introduce genetically modified group personal pensions—stakeholder pensions—and we appreciated the way in which he drew on that experience in his work on pensions. Many Opposition Members think that the right hon. Gentleman was the best Chief Whip that Labour never had, and I wish him well as he retires from the House.
This modest and sensible Bill has been introduced after four years of not much activity among Ministers. Certainly, the level of activity has been pathetic compared with the arguments and observations made about the size of social security fraud. Back in July 1998, the original Government publication, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business" state that:
a conservative estimate of fraud is £2 billion … the figure could be much higher, around £7 billion if all suspicions of fraud were well founded.
One of the ways in which Labour Ministers have tried to show that they are making progress in tackling fraud is by reducing the size of their estimate of fraud. We do not hear so much about £7 billion now, but they were happy to talk about £7 billion then. The Minister of State famously answered a parliamentary question by specifying that there could be total of £7 billion of "definite", "probably" and "possible" social security fraud.
I should be interested to know whether Ministers still believe that there is £7 billion of fraud. I should also be interested to know whether Ministers agree with the proposition in their own manifesto, on which the Secretary of State and his colleagues fought the last election, in which they said:
We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year".
I wonder whether they still believe the estimate that housing benefit fraud costs £2 billion a year, because such figures put their record on social security fraud into perspective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said so effectively, the only way in which the Government can claim any progress at all is by combining fraud and error.
I recognise that in a complicated social security system, error can slip into fraud; it is not always possible to make an easy distinction between the two. It is perfectly possible for someone initially to make a genuine mistake in filling in a claim form. By and large, if the mistake or error leads to an underpayment, people are more likely to go back to their benefit office and challenge it than if the error leads to an overpayment. Those who consciously accept an overpayment are on the slippery slope that leads to deliberate fraud. I recognise that links exist between fraud and error, so I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise, that one of the best ways to tackle fraud is by reducing the complexity of the social security system. Fraud and error breed in a system that is far too complicated to administer.
The Public Accounts Committee got it absolutely right in a report last year, when it stated that
without simplification"—
of the rules on income support—
10 per cent. of payments would always be wrong.
That represents a warning about the consequences of an overcomplicated social security system. Our criticism of the Government is that, far from making it simpler, they are perpetually making yet more complicated. That is why there is so much fraud and error. The Government can get at the root of the problem only through genuine simplification.
The Secretary of State claims the credit for setting up a system properly to measure fraud and error, but, of course, that system was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, a previous


Secretary of State. The Government are ignoring the problem with tax credits, which represent another complicated new system that is wide open to fraud. We hear dismissive answers from Ministers, who deny that an easy way to measure fraud exists. At the moment, they refuse to offer any estimates whatever of fraud and error in tax credits, but we know that they are a significant problem.
The providers of child care are directly affected. They have brought to our attention the scandal of people claiming the tax credit for child care, providing invoices and estimates for child care that they have not used and pocketing the cash. That is a classic example of the way in which tax credits are exploited because they are wide open to fraud and abuse, yet Ministers have discontinued the estimation of fraud for inwork benefits that we introduced when we were in office in an attempt to deal with the problem of fraud in family credit, as it then was.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the move towards credits adversely affects the cash flow of many small businesses, without any apparent compensation for the difficulties that they face?

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. We have many criticisms of tax credits and I know that it is sometimes with a sense of relief that Ministers in the Department of Social Security say that such credits are now a matter for the Treasury. However, the administration of tax credits is an increasing scandal in the tax and benefits system. In my surgery, I have to deal with more problems involving the working families tax credit—WFTC—than I do with problems involving the Child Support Agency.
The problems that people face with the WFTC, and the fraud and error involved, are significant. That is why I regret the fact that the provisions in the Bill explicitly exclude tax credits. It is a great pity that tax credits are not included within its scope.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly said that the Bill was modest, and that is in stark contrast to the bloated rhetoric of the Secretary of State's speech, which was wholly out of proportion to the limited accomplishments that the right hon. Gentleman has to his credit. Would my hon. Friend care to say something about the recent plaudits that Wandsworth council has earned for its excellent and robust policy in prosecuting fraudsters? Will he also comment on the appalling incompetence of Labour councils in failing to bring fraudsters to book and on the two-fifths of local authorities that have no formal prosecution policy for fraud?

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. As I was listening to the Secretary of State, I recalled the definition of absurdity as using a great force to lift a light object. I am afraid that that is what we heard from the Secretary of State. I shall come to my hon. Friend's point about local government shortly, but the mixed record of local authorities in tackling welfare fraud is another scandal that the Bill does far too little to address.
The problem of tax credits was outlined very well by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in a speech just under a year ago to a forum on fraud organised

by the credit industry fraud avoidance system. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, but the press release that was issued on that occasion said:
The Inland Revenue have indicated to the Social Security Select Committee that the security arrangements are similar to those for the WFTC's predecessor Family Credit. The Benefit Review of fraud in Family Credit was cancelled following Frank Field's departure from office. There is particular concern over fraud involving nursery schools and collusion with employers over wages.
That is the account of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made last year, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Given the evidence of fraud in tax credits, their deliberate and explicit omission from clause 7(8) of the current Bill is a serious matter that should be addressed.
There are other reasons why the Government have not been able to tackle fraud as effectively as we would have liked. It is not just that they have been a soft touch when it comes to tax credits. For example, I was struck by the evidence of the way in which the new deal has diverted people's efforts away from effectively tackling fraud. The 32nd report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published last July, stated:
As regards Jobseeker's Allowance, Mr. Mathison noted that the main contributory factor"—
to the level of fraud and error—
had been the impact of the New Deal and various other Welfare to Work initiatives. involving the Employment Service. Experienced staff had been diverted on to these projects, leaving new and inexperienced people to deal with the administration of Jobseeker's Allowance
That was Mr. Mathison's explanation of the unacceptable level of error and fraud in the system. The Government will not be able to get away with some of the claims that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, given that their own officials hive said that the new deal has diverted people away from effectively and accurately delivering benefits to unemployed people.
What we have had from the Government—typically, of course—is a large number of press releases and a large amount of expensive advertising. We have counted 45 separate press releases during their period in office. They have averaged about one a month, and all have claimed that the Government are taking bold new initiatives to tackle fraud, whereas, in practice, they have done precious little about it.
The current advertising campaign has been received with widespread bafflement. I do not know how many millions of pounds the Government are paying for the press and television advertisements, but let us consider the effect of saying
'It's only a few quid, who notices that?' Do you find this acceptable?
It is extremely doubtful whether such remarks, together with the many quotes apparently justifying welfare fraud, are having any effect in putting people off committing welfare fraud.
Unlike the advertisements that were produced when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was Secretary of State, these advertisements do not provide a telephone number that people can contact to shop a benefit cheat. They offer no means by which people can act. There is simply the slogan "Targeting Fraud", with no suggestion of the practical action that can be taken.

Mr. Webb: It is a post-modern advertisement.

Mr. Willetts: It will certainly soon be post-Labour.
We know from evaluation of trials in the north-west that that approach was ineffective, but Ministers continued to spend all that money on the advertisements. The Secretary of State placed the evaluation report in the Library in response to a question that I tabled, and I appreciate that. The report states:
One negative impact that may be the result of the campaign was that respondents within the test area perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit.
It was hardly a brilliantly successful anti-fraud advertising campaign. In fact, rather ruefully, the report added:
However, it is difficult to make people aware that benefit fraud is widespread without increasing their perception of how easy it is to commit at the same time
The following page of the report continued:
In terms of likelihood of reporting someone via the NBFH"—that is the hotline—
"results in the test area do not really show much difference to the country as a whole—demonstrating once again how entrenched opinions are on this topic.
The evaluation showed that, in the north-west, one of the effects of the advertisements was to make people think that benefit fraud was easier to get away with. There was no evidence whatever of an increase in the number of people reporting fraudsters to the hotline. None the less, despite the evidence from the north-west that the pilots were not getting the message across, Ministers went ahead with spending millions of pounds on a national advertising campaign. That is why the Department of Social Security's advertising budget is spinning out of control.
We see another example of the way in which spin has gone ahead of substance when we investigate the "two strikes and you're out" policy. The policy gets headlines for the Secretary of State, but how many people will be penalised by it? I tabled a parliamentary question simply to establish how many people had been successfully prosecuted twice for welfare fraud. The fact is that not many people are prosecuted successfully once. The figure is about 10,000 a year. The Minister of State replied:
Our research suggests that approximately 5 per cent. of prosecutions involve a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud.
According to the Minister's figures, about 500 people are second-time offenders. That is 500 too many, and of course we must be tough on them, but it is rather surprising that Ministers make such play of that provision and give it such a high profile when. as the Minister of State went on to say, they are
putting in place mechanisms to identify second and further convictions." —[0fficial Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360,c. 576W.]
The Government did not even have the evidence on the number of people who had twice been successfully prosecuted for welfare fraud before they decided on the policy. Their estimate that there are perhaps 500 such people does not justify all the hype and headlines.
What more could be done? One of several possibilities is to implement the Scampion report on organised benefit fraud. I very much regret the way in which the Secretary of State smuggled out that report last January, and he has still not implemented all its recommendations. It is not simply a matter of setting up a single national agency, although that is one of Scampion's proposals that we have endorsed but the Secretary of State has not implemented

The underlying point in the report is that the problem is not merely an absence of legal powers. Indeed, it is doubtful to what extent it is a legal problem at all. It is an organisational problem, and a point about Ministers' commitment to tackling fraud. Passing laws or changing legal powers is the easy bit. The difficult bit is changing the culture of an organisation so that there is genuinely effective work on fraud.
We were all shocked when, on 23 January 2000, after his departure from the Government, the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said:
My first big shock in Government was the realisation of the political reluctance to bear down on the welfare cheats.
Political will and organisational discipline are at least as important as legal powers.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will accept that the last time that he launched into this theme, in The Times, John Scampion was quoted as saying that he was quite happy with what we were doing and that it in no way undermined what he was doing. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how setting up a national organised benefits squad would save £1 billion in itself, as the shadow Chancellor keeps claiming?

Mr. Willetts: That is one of the measures that we would take, which together would ensure that we saved £1 billion. Tackling organised benefit fraud, which is a significant part of the problem, through the measures identified in the Scampion report would make a significant contribution to that target, but that is not all that we would do.

Mr. Darling: How does the hon. Gentleman know that he would save £1 billion, given that the Conservative Government did not do so in 18 years? He must know that the shadow Chancellor has already spent the money over and over, so he must know that he has it.

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State and his colleagues have said that they estimate that there is £7 billion of welfare fraud. In the manifesto on which he fought the last election, he even said that there was £2 billion of housing benefit fraud alone. [Interruption.] It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), saying that there is £2 billion of fraud in total. Four years ago, she fought the election on the manifesto claim that there was £2 billion of housing benefit fraud alone, and I presume that she does not think that there is zero fraud everywhere else in the social security system.
If there is £7 billion of social security fraud, we believe that we can take measures that will, between them, ensure that an extra seventh of that sum—£1 billion—can be saved. One of the ways of doing that is to tackle organised welfare fraud by fully implementing the proposals in the Scampion report. That is not merely a question of legal powers, although as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is a useful step forward in that respect. It is a question of tackling organisational matters and bringing together the disparate responsibilities in different parts of the Department.

Mr. Darling: I have never claimed that there is £7 billion of fraud in the system. Interestingly, when the


right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is here tonight, was Secretary of State for Social Security, it was suggested to him that there was £7 billion of benefit fraud, and he rightly rubbished the suggestion—as I do, because there is not.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) appears to be arguing that because there is fraud in the system, he would be able to save £1 billion just by setting up an organised benefits squad. He is flying by the seat of his pants. Given that the Tories did not manage to cut any fraud during their time in office, how can he say that he knows that he would save £1 billion, especially bearing in mind the fact that the money has already been spent? All he has is an IOU. What evidence does he have that suggests that he could possibly save £1 billion?

Mr. Willetts: I remind the Secretary of State of what I said a few moments ago, when I quoted from the Government report, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business", which contains an estimate of social security fraud. It says that
a conservative estimate of fraud is £2 billion a year; but the figure could be much higher, around £7 billion, if all suspicions of fraud were well founded.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not recognise or use that figure. He cannot deny that his Department's main document on social security fraud, published in July 1998, since he came into office, contains the figure.

Mr. Butterfill: It is perhaps worth quoting the Minister of State, who said in a written answer:
Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected and a further £2 billion where there is some suspicion of fraud."—[Official Report, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 323W.]
That seems to add up to £7 billion, so perhaps that is where the Government got the figure from.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. It is no good the Secretary of State now trying to escape from figures, which the Government have happily endorsed in the past, that add up to £7 billion.
In tackling £7 billion of welfare fraud, we would not rely entirely on Scampion's proposals, but tackling organised benefit fraud would make an important contribution to our £1 billion of savings. Local authorities are another area in which much more could be done, and are another example of the Secretary of State talking tough but failing to deliver.
For my sins, I receive a regular supply of the Secretary of State's press releases. One, dated 6 March 2000 says, "Darling Gets Tough with Councils failing to tackle Housing Benefit Fraud." In it, the right hon. Gentleman says:
I want to make it abundantly clear that where investigations by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reveal weakness I will expect authorities to act immediately to remedy them".
He continues:
Where the BFI identify persistent service failings by councils I will use my powers to direct standards and timescales for improved performance.

What has the right hon. Gentleman done in the year since that announcement, in which he talked so tough?
The Secretary of State has received many reports from the benefit fraud inspectorate. Since January 2000, he has had seven reports that were favourable to councils, but he has had 40 critical reports, saying that councils are not effectively tackling welfare fraud. I have them here because we follow these matters carefully. On only one occasion—I think wretched Northampton was the victim—has he done as he threatened and used his powers to direct standards and impose time scales for improved performance. After all that huffing and puffing and 40 critical reports, only one case has led to a ministerial direction.
That is one reason why the figures for housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud are so bad. In the last year for which we have reliable figures, there were 160,000 cases of established fraud, 1,900 cases referred for prosecution and 800 successful prosecutions. That is a strike rate of 0.5 per cent., which is simply not good enough when we are trying to tackle fraud in local authorities. That is why we have said that when local authorities are clearly not up to the administration of housing benefit, that responsibility should go to the Benefits Agency. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary asks how we would decide which local authorities were not up to the job. I am pleased she asks, because I would like to ask Ministers a question in return. They clearly do not trust some local authorities with the powers to secure private financial information of the sort for which they are providing in the Bill.
Proposed new section 110AA(5) allows the Government to determine that only some local authorities are able to exercise the powers. The Secretary of State decides whether a local authority can exercise the powers. The Under-Secretary has a view about the local authorities that she would trust with them. That is based, presumably, on information that she has about which local authorities are effectively and competently pursuing fraud and which she does not trust to use such information competently or to keep it confidential. We would act on similar information to decide which local authorities are capable of properly administering housing benefit. We would also take into account information from reports by the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office.
The clear implication buried in the Bill is that Ministers do not trust some local authorities to use the powers to tackle fraud. I suspect that they are right. The Government should use their powers in that way. We pursue that policy to its logical conclusion. If Ministers cannot trust a local authority with information that will be secured to tackle fraud, why are they sitting there and allowing that authority to administer housing benefit when the level of fraud is so high? On a selective basis and in those circumstances, we believe that the Benefits Agency should administer housing benefit.
The Government can do something about national insurance numbers, to which the Secretary of State briefly referred. Since they took office, more than 4 million national insurance numbers have been added to the Department of Social Security register and only 300,000 have been removed. Britain now has 81 million national insurance numbers for 60 million people. At first we were told that that was because of people who are entitled to contributory benefits from a deceased spouse. That might


explain a few million extra numbers, but it does not explain why there are 25 million more numbers than there are people in the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State struck a different note today. He no longer complacently defended the 81 million national insurance numbers. Instead, he claimed that the Government would tackle the fraudulent national insurance numbers.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There are two reasons why national insurance numbers rose dramatically in the past 10 years. First, in 1990–91, the Conservative Government understandably decided that married women who did not have national insurance numbers should get them, so they issued 3 million. Secondly, in 1992–93, they issued 13 million numbers for children. The hon. Gentleman should remember those policies because I think he was a Minister at the time. The fact that we have a much larger number of national insurance numbers than people of working age is substantially because 10 years ago the Tory Government issued an awful lot of them.
There are 47 million national insurance numbers for UK residents over the age of 16. That is think, an Office for National Statistics figure. About 12.5 million national insurance numbers are for children who are coming into the system. They are called child reference numbers. Each year, 700,000 national insurance numbers are added because a number is issued every time a child is born.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, some national insurance numbers have to be kept in existence. There are two reasons for that. First, the spouse of someone who dies might have rights that accrue from that person's contributions, so the number has to be retained. Secondly, people who come to this country to work get a national insurance number and might then leave or, in the case of expatriates, return. That is why there is an excess. I accept that we need regularly to cleanse the numbers, we are doing that. The figures show that we have removed rather more numbers than the Tories ever did.

Mr. Willetts: That was a lengthy intervention to tell us what we already know. We recognise that the previous Government correctly decided to make child benefit numbers proto-NI numbers. Indeed, every member of the population should have a child benefit number as a step towards receiving a national insurance number. As the Secretary of State is in intervening mood, does he think that all the 81 million national insurance numbers are valid, or have some people falsely obtained them?

Mr. Darling: I said that we are introducing tighter checks on the granting of national insurance numbers. When we tried out the new procedures in south London, there were 361 arrests and a number of deportations. Some 4,600 applications were refused which would otherwise have been accepted. Many measures are at the disposal of the Government to tackle fraud and system errors. The difference between this Government and the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member is that we are implementing them and beginning to turn the corner in our fight against rising fraud and system

error. National insurance numbers are no exception. The reason for my long intervention is that the hon. Gentleman was talking nonsense—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I appreciate that the issue is complicated, but the Secretary of State's interventions are verging on speeches.

Mr. Willetts: The Government are not implementing those measures; they are merely talking about it. That is why there are 45 press releases and a statistically insignificant change in the amount fraud. There is a great deal of talk, but not much action.

Mr. Butterfill: I checked the numbers with the House of Commons Library. There are 82 million national insurance numbers and 48 million people of employable age.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. It is important that we have effective data cleaning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden initiated such a project when he was Secretary of State in 1995. It was a good example of how the problem should be tackled.
Let me move on from national insurance numbers— [Interruption.] I warn the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), that I will respond to his challenge and talk at even greater length about them. I do not believe that issuing 4,061,512 national insurance numbers between 1997 and 2000 was effective control of the problem. The figure is too large and suggests that the controls are not tight enough.
I am concerned about the effectiveness of the proposals. We must consider whether we can be comfortable that the powers to secure data from private sources will be safe not just from a challenge by the Data Protection Commissioner—I look forward to seeing her letter, which the Secretary of State has generously agreed to provide—but from a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998. The other place debated that at length, but did not reach a conclusion.
When the assistant commissioner spoke at a conference of the British Bankers Association last week, he outlined the difficulties that the office of the Data Protection Commissioner has with the Bill. There is a widespread anxiety that the powers might not be secure if they are challenged under human rights legislation. It would be a frustrating but all too typical example of the way in which the Government behave if powers that are taken with a flurry to demonstrate their effectiveness in tackling welfare fraud result only in a challenge in the courts and cannot be used as originally intended. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is offering me the commissioner's letter and I look forward to studying it.
We need an assurance not just that the Data Protection Commissioner is content with the Bill, but that the Secretary of State believes that he can stand by his judgment on the front of the Bill that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated in UK law. We still need further information on that point.
When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I would like to hear his estimate of the burden on business that will result from the enactment and implementation of the proposed legislation. Very few of those working in


the financial services industry believe Ministers' estimates of the cost of compliance, which range from £2.3 million to £7 million. One bank alone believes that 38 additional staff will be needed to comply with the Bill's provisions. We know from Ministers that they are expecting 900,000 inquiries a year when the Bill is enacted. The idea that those inquiries can be dealt with by private sector banks and financial institutions at a maximum cost of £7 million is one that is difficult to believe. I hope that we shall hear more from the Minister of State about the real burdens on business.
I hope also that we shall hear more about the way in which the Department will be organised to discharge the powers that it will have when the Bill is enacted. I do not know whether what the Secretary of State said was new. I suspect it was a new and lower estimate of the number of officials in his Department who in the first instance would have powers as designated officers to pursue information, using the provisions set out in the Bill.
Another concern has focused on the number of people who will be so empowered and how well they will be trained. There is the problem of spoofing. Bogus inquiries will be made to banks by people claiming to be working for the Benefits Agency. The Secretary of State should know about that. We have had a great deal of spoofing by the Government over the past four years. There is a need also to have single and reliable points of contact.
It seems that we are reaching the stage where there will be only 14 area benefit offices, with relatively few staff. They will be expected to discharge their powers under the Bill. We shall listen with great interest to anything that the Minister of State can say about what that means for the organisation of the Benefits Agency.
We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. The measure has been heavily revised and improved in another place. It is a modest step in the right direction. We do not believe that it will deliver what the Secretary of State and his ministerial team claim for it. That will require energetic ministerial intervention and organisational change within the Department, and that will have to wait for another Government.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) began his brief contribution to the debate by commenting that this evening may be the last occasion on which we shall hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State speak from the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman also began with comments about my right hon. Friend, and I hope to conclude my equally brief contribution with comments about him too.
I hope also that there are those who can make a distinction between this being perhaps the last speech that we shall hear in this place from my right hon. Friend, but not the last speech that he makes in Parliament. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Havant and others will contain themselves, I will suggest why Parliament would be strengthened if my right hon. Friend's speech this evening were not his last.
Much has been made about the extent of social security fraud. Most of us will conclude that it is too large and that it may be growing. The Government have introduced the Bill because they wish new powers to be more

effective than those that Governments have had in the past to safeguard taxpayers' money. It is fair game to cite and to criticise the figures in "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", but I must declare an interest. For about three months, I was the Minister responsible for counter-fraud, and during that time the document was produced. Though the figures did not come down from Mount Sinai, they did go through No. 10. If there is a wish to query them, people should know that they have that stamp of approval.
In the spirit of give and take, I shall suggest four modest but important ways in which the Bill could be improved. As in the other place, I hope that the Government will be open to suggestions. The first involves working families tax credit. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State, who is as anxious as anyone to bear down on fraud, would willingly exclude WFTC from the Bill.
When we consider the Bill in Committee and on Report and table amendments to include working families tax credit, I hope that my right hon. Friend will invite those of his colleagues who have opposed WFTC being part of the Bill to defend their action, and not leave him to defend an omission that I am sure he was anxious not to agree initially.
There is resistance to serious consideration of possible fraud problems with the WFTC. It was not only when the ministerial team first met after the general election that I suggested that if the WFTC was to be part of our programme, we should undertake a benefit review of family credit. During my 13 or so weeks as a Minister, I asked for that review to take place. I am not surprised that those papers no longer exist. I have no doubt that most of them will disappear down a black hole, as did so many of the papers relating to other activities at that time.
From talking before the general election, let alone since, to counter-fraud officers who deal with the WFTC, it would be necessary to be simple beyond words to believe that there was not a major issue. As the Green Paper stated, when new benefits are being designed, we should try to design out the obvious ways in which fraud is being committed on current benefits. It stood to reason that we should have had a benefit review of the WFTC. We did not, but that is water under the bridge. None of us has the power to shift the bridge further downstream so that the water can pass under it again. However, we can ensure that the WFTC comes within the ambit of the Bill. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion is to strengthen the proposed penalties. I hope that we shall move to two strikes and out. That should be our policy, with no qualifications and no changes. However, we should not kid ourselves that that will deal with the more serious crimes against taxpayers in respect of social security fraud.
On reading the Bill, it is interesting to ascertain where the Government think that the main fraud is located. It is in that area that they are proposing penalties. There are the individuals who might suffer the two strokes and out, and employers. I know that my right hon. Friend has spoken to those in the credit industry who are concerned about countering fraud, and about the people who they see practising fraud against them and the taxpayer. They have an image of well-organised firms undertaking such activity, and some of them are prepared to use guns.
The thought that a two strikes and out policy, or an up to £5,000 fine for employers, could deter that group suggests to me that we will welcome an opportunity to consider penalties again and further to strengthen the armoury that taxpayers have to protect their hard-earned income.
That leads me to my third suggestion, which relates to national insurance numbers. There was horror in the Department when, as a Minister, I suggested that we should consider the probity, the record and the background of those who issue national insurance numbers. It said that staff would be up in arms. I have never taken that view; with identity cards, all those who have nothing to hide would have no worries about such changes.
We should encourage the Government now to make a move on looking at people's backgrounds to ensure that staff are who they say are when they apply for jobs, especially those who are in charge of issuing national insurance numbers. If one goes back to the gangs—which, after all, are attacking taxpayers' biggest budget and the image that the credit, banking, finance and insurance industries present about these people—it is inconceivable that those highly organised groups have not placed some of their people on the inside so that they know which of those excess national insurance numbers can be used safely for the creation not just of the odd identity, but mass identities. When we come to consider the Bill in Committee and on Report, I suggest that we strengthen the Government's hand on safe guarding national insurance numbers.

Mr. Webb: I wonder whether I can make a link between what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about infiltration of the Department of Social Security and the powers in the Bill to have a good nose around people's bank accounts. Does the conjunction of the two concern him?

Mr. Field: I hope that I will be here when the hon. Gentleman speaks. It is not that I have important meetings to go to, but I have a personal one to attend, so I may not hear his contribution. I am not quite sure of the connection that he is making.
There are civil liberty issues that relate to this issue and other aspects of the Bill, and it is proper for people to be concerned that the weight in our society is against civil liberties and in favour of protecting the majority. I do not share that view, but I respect the fact that others hold it. I do not think that we have got the balance right, and the Bill moves in an important direction to strengthen the hand of taxpayers collectively to look after their hard-earned income, as against the possible infringement of certain people's individual rights, although most of that group are undertaking activities that are not in the interests of decent taxpayers—[Interruption] Perhaps I shall pick that point up later. Although there is a conflict, I come down firmly on the Government's side.
My final point is about what the Bill calls data sharing, although the industry calls it data raiding. Later in the Bill's proceedings, I hope that we can suggest that it becomes genuine data sharing. One useful amendment would be to give the Government power to join CIFAS, the credit industry fraud avoidance system. From a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, it appeared that there was a legal bar against the

Government joining that organisation. Merging the Government's information on trying to counter benefit fraud with the information that the industry has on its way of trying to counter fraud would help us as consumers to pay lower premiums and, I am sure, pay huge dividends for taxpayers. That is only one move in what I hope will be a whole series of moves on data sharing that would shift the balance towards decent citizens, and against our comrades who so often put two fingers up to us and run amok locally and nationally.
Those are my suggested reforms, which, I hope, we can add to the Bill before we enter the election fray. I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted to conclude by picking up the theme of the hon. Member for Havant in respect of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been in the House for 22 years, and my right hon. Friend was a Member of Parliament when I arrived. I first met him when I worked for the Low Pay Unit and, in its early days, came with another member of the unit—who is now my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) —to speak to a group of Labour Back Benchers. I hope that by raising that I do not harm my hon. Friend's career in any way.
As an ordinary worker in the Low Pay Unit, my hon. Friend raised the question of indexing allowance. Two people in the room were taking copious notes; my right hon. Friend and my friend Audrey Wise who, until recently, was the Member for Preston. I was surprised because, not only did they take notes and table the relevant amendments but, when the then Government were on a knife edge, with almost no majority at all, they both stood their ground and made reforms for which many people continue to be grateful to them.
The first characteristic of my right hon. Friend of which I was aware was his bravery under fire, as they say. During the long years of opposition, I also learned that if he thought that something was right, he would say so in the Chamber. We have heard this evening that a lot of people out there need to be convinced that fraud is bad, but I have not met any of them. However, he and I faced quite a few Members in the Chamber who did not think that countering fraud was important. The fact that all three parties now have a united front on countering fraud owes not a little to the stance that he was prepared to take in opposition, when his own side was still wandering around the garden of Eden suggesting that it was not a problem at all.
The fact that we now have a much more determined fight against fraud and that the Government are adding to their powers in the Bill is one small testament to the effect that my right hon. Friend has had on debates in this place. As I said, I hope that this is not the last time that Parliament hears from him.

Mr. Steve Webb: May I pick up where the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) left off and perhaps make the Minister of State feel even older? As a child living in Great Barr, just down the road from his Perry Barr constituency, I used to read the Birmingham Evening Mail every night and see his face there; I thought that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like him—[Interruption.] I am not sure that it ever came to that.
As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, Members on both sides of the House are united in the view that fraud is a serious issue that costs a considerable


sum. However big the figures— £2 billion or £7 billion—they are hard to grasp. Whatever the amount, it is enormous and could be used better than by being spent on fraudulent benefit claims. Clearly, we all want more action on fraud. Later, I shall come on to the fact that I am not convinced that the Government are using their existing powers to tackle fraud effectively.
We have had a knockabout, but I want to look at the Bill itself. It is called the Social Security Fraud Bill, and it sounds as though it must be a good thing, because we are all against fraud. However, we must always ask whether its measures for tackling fraud are appropriate: do they go too far? I want to focus on that question.
I want to raise a number of concerns—especially the business about delving into people's bank accounts and credit reference agencies—that are raised by clause 1. When I have done so, I hope that the Minister will respond to them in his reply, unless he has a better engagement, but I am sure that he will be here until the bitter end.
First, I turn to the scale of intrusion. In the other place, Baroness Hollis gave an assurance that there would be no fishing trips, yet the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be 800,000 inquiries every year, many of them into bank accounts, credit reference agencies, utilities, telecommunications and so on. Some are unexceptionable. There is nothing wrong with asking a utility company whether any gas or electricity has been used at a house, and if it becomes apparent that no fuel has been used in the house, it is appropriate to wonder about paying someone housing benefit for occupancy of it.
However, hundreds of thousands of inquiries to banks and building societies are mentioned. There is a contrast between that number, which was not used by the Secretary of State—he hardly touched on the Bill until quite late in his speech—and the impression that the Government are trying to give that the process will be measured, carefully scrutinised and carried out under controlled circumstances. The two things seem to be at odds. It is hard to see how hundreds of thousands of inquiries into people's bank details are consistent with a carefully controlled examination of only the information that needs to be examined.
My first worry is that the scale of the exercise will make it difficult to control. In another place, the Government stressed that there would be safeguards, that there would not be fishing trips and that checks would be made, but the scale that is envisaged makes me wonder whether that is practical. I have my doubts.
The second concern is whether those activities will be subject to independent scrutiny. An analogy has been drawn with the tax commissioners in the case of the Inland Revenue, who have an independent status, whereas the activity envisaged by the Bill will be subject to what are called management checks. Much of the scrutiny to determine whether the powers are being used properly will be internal.
In years to come, I can imagine constituents complaining to us that the DSS has been getting copies of their bank statements and finding out about their personal details. People will be shocked that the Department can do that, particularly when they are proven to be entirely innocent, and we will feel that we should have made sure

that there were more safeguards in place—independent safeguards, not just someone else in the Department saying, "Yes, it is all right."
I am aware that there is a code of practice, and I am grateful to the Department for making it available to us. I know that only part of the code of practice was available to another place when the Bill was considered there. The code of practice is helpful, but its contents do not form part of the Bill. It is referred to in the Bill, but breaching the code of practice is not, in itself, an offence. Critically, the code of practice can be amended without reference to the House—I believe that I am right in saying that. At a later stage, we may wish to explore the conditions under which it can be amended. If that is the safeguard—if the Minister's response to our concerns is, "There is a code of practice, which is publicly available"—we need to be reassured that it cannot be changed, thereby possibly undermining people's protection, without proper scrutiny in this place.
A further source of concern is the seniority of the staff involved in examining people's bank accounts. In other cases in which those powers exist, the prying into people's personal circumstances is done by more senior staff than envisaged by the Bill.

Mr. Butterfill: If someone applies to a building society for a mortgage, is it unreasonable for the building society to ask to check the person's status with his bank? Is that an intrusion into his privacy? Is there not an analogy with someone asking for state benefits and being asked whether a check can be carried out with his bank? Is that really such an erosion of people's private rights?

Mr. Webb: When one applies for a mortgage, the information that is requested is limited, specific and relevant. On the occasions when I have applied for a mortgage, I do not remember being asked for copies of my bank statements. I might have been asked to state what my salary was and I might have been asked to produce mortgage statements from other lenders, but not for all sorts of extraneous information. One of my concerns about the powers in the Bill is that the temptation to do a bit of fishing is considerable.
First, there will be the question about whether there is an account, and perhaps a question about the balance, then the investigating officer might think, "Maybe we should look a little further. We might find something else." That must be a huge temptation. There is no cost to the civil servant concerned. By pursuing the matter as far as possible, he might turn something up and get a pat on the head for finding something, even if that does not happen nine times out of 10.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. Perhaps there is something wrong with the way in which disclosure is dealt with at present. He may not be aware that whenever he asks for any form of credit—for example, from a building society, or for a loan to buy a new car—he will sign a form that entitles the lender to make all sorts of inquiries about him, including his status with his bank.

Mr. Webb: There is a difference between my status with my bank, and copies of my bank statements for the past six months. The question is how far it is legitimate


for the state to go in pursuing suspected fraud. How strong does the suspicion need to be? It is the lack of scrutiny that worries me.
We will not oppose Second Reading—I shall not keep the House in suspense any longer—and we think that it is legitimate for the state, in tightly controlled circumstances, to check some of the information that it might need to corroborate, but we want to be sure that there is independent scrutiny, that the investigation is not carried out on such a massive scale that scrutiny is impossible and that the information requested is specific and limited, not just general fishing.
Until the Bill went through another place, there was a clause stating that the people who would be scrutinised would include those in a category more likely than others to commit fraud. The fact that the Government even thought of writing that in is extremely worrying. I do not know whether they had in mind people who looked a bit shifty or people with funny accents.
I am not sure what the criteria were to be, but the fact that the Government thought of including a clause that would allow them to examine the bank accounts and so on of people who seemed more likely than others or who were statistically more likely than others to commit fraud suggests the sweeping ambitions that the Government had. I am delighted that in another place the Government responded to criticism and reined in those ambitions, but I am concerned that the ambitions existed in the first place.

Mr. Willetts: The best that Ministers could come up with was the suggestion that the measure would attack window cleaners. Perhaps, with an election looming, they were so worried about losing the window cleaner vote that they abandoned the idea. However, that was the only explanation that the Government could come up with when challenged on the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes.

Mr. Webb: That suggests entirely new angles on laundering, I suspect.
We are anxious that the powers should be independently scrutinised by senior staff and should not be on such a large scale that they get out of hand. I spent a riveting time this afternoon reading the code of practice. It is not just civil service staff but subcontractors who will potentially have those powers, so the powers could be exercised at one more remove. That a further source of concern to us.
I have already asked what assurance there was that the information requested would be the minimum that was needed. The incentives are all wrong. The incentive for the member of staff must be to ask for as much as possible, because in one case out of 10, 100 or 1,000, something extra will be detected. How much intrusion should be balanced against that? We are worried that there are not sufficient controls to prevent such fishing expeditions.
There are questions about who will bear the cost. Often, the actions of central Government incur costs for local government, and local government never gets reimbursed. Under the Bill, local authorities will have to supply information. Will that be just another burden on local authorities, or will the Government meet the cost?
Have the Government considered a possible side-effect of the Bill? As a result of the power of the state to gain access to people's bank accounts on a much larger scale

than ever before, people may stop having bank accounts. Have the Government assessed the likelihood of that? Given that one of the Government's strategies is to create a universal bank and to get more people to have accounts, is there a danger that if people think that their financial affairs are not private and their transactions are not secure in a bank account, fewer will have bank accounts? I should be grateful for the Minister's response.
I mentioned earlier my concern that the Government are not using their existing powers to crack down on housing benefit fraud. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State what he thought of the fact that housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities had gone down between the second and third years of his Government. He said that the Government were trying to do more to stop fraud in the first place, but I was not convinced that that explained why local authorities were finding less fraud.
My reading of the situation is, first, that local authorities have not been supported enough in their anti-fraud work, and, secondly, that the Government have not used the powers that they have to make sure that local authorities are doing more. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, rightly, that the Government's existing powers have been used only once, against Northampton council. That local authority detects 1 per cent. of benefit expenditure in fraud. The most successful local authorities detect 5 or 6 per cent. of expenditure in fraud. If the worst performing authorities could be brought to the average of the best, the Government could save £400 million or £500 million. That seems a credible goal for a two or three-year period. The key question is why the Government have not used those powers more. The Secretary of State did not answer when the hon. Member for Havant asked about the matter, but I hope that the Minister of State will do so. Of course, there are huge variations in local authority anti-fraud activity. Detected fraud has fallen, but there is not much evidence to suggest that the Government are using existing powers before they ask the House for more.
I should like to refer to one further aspect of the Bill about which the Liberal Democrats are perhaps especially concerned—the effect of the benefit sanctions. I spoke about war pensions in a slightly hurried intervention on the Secretary of State. I wanted him to deal with the issue before he finished his speech. Bizarrely, a "Two strikes and you're out" approach is applied to fraud in respect of war pensions, but not to fraud on retirement pensions. When Baroness Hollis was asked why retirement pensions were not included in the Bill, she gave the reason that there was virtually no fraud in respect of such pensions.
Does the Minister of State believe that serious fraud exists in connection with war pensions? It would be helpful for an answer to be put on record. If no serious fraud is committed and it is accepted that Britain's war pensioners are decent, law-abiding people who should be getting the money, the inclusion of war pensions in the Bill is insulting. If he is considering tabling amendments, he should be aware that knocking war pensions out of the Bill could remove a potential source of offence at no cost to the Government. War pensions should not be included in the Bill.
What of the people who are sanctioned? Few of us will have any sympathy for such people, as they will have attempted twice to defraud the benefits system. However, we must consider the appropriate punishment for such


people. For example, is it appropriate to punish their dependants, who are likely to be children? The Minister of State will say "We're not touching the child rates; only the personal allowances", but that still reduces the total amount that is coming into the household. Anybody who has tried to live on income support for any period will know that income will already be at a minimum. The Bill can take somebody who has committed two offences below income support levels, along with the rest of the household.
In another place, the Government were challenged by my noble Friend Earl Russell about research evidence in that respect. What research have they undertaken into the effect of the benefit sanctions on those who are sanctioned? What does the Bill do to such people and to their dependants? The short answer is that the Government do not have a clue. In fact, they do not care. Whenever they are asked such questions in the House, they say that people should not commit fraud anyway.
We must consider the appropriateness and proportionality of any punishment. As I have previously reminded the House, when people are convicted of murder, we still feed them, clothe them and put a roof over their head. The Bill requires people who have committed benefit fraud twice to live below the poverty line for a sustained period of punishment. How can it be appropriate that although somebody who has committed a severe crime is guaranteed the human rights of food, clothing and shelter, somebody who has done something far less serious can be denied those basic rights?
The Government talk a lot about rights and responsibilities. I do not want to take away from anyone the basic human rights of food, shelter and clothing, especially when he or she has committed a crime that is far less serious than those for which imprisonment is the usual punishment. There is a serious danger, however, that that is what the cumulative effect of the Government's benefits sanctions will mean. The 40 per cent. sanction mentioned in the Bill can be applied on top of another 40 per cent. sanction. That may happen in only a few cases, but such measures are getting out of control. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should not introduce any further benefits sanctions until they have commissioned proper research into the effects on those who are sanctioned.
We are concerned about the Bill, but we will not stand in its way, as we share the commitment to tackling fraud. However, the response to fraud must be proportionate, independently verified and properly controlled, and we have yet to be convinced that those conditions will be satisfied.

Kali Mountford: I have been a little surprised by this evening's debate. There seems to be so much conciliation that Member's are acting as though there is no opposition outside the House to arguments about the need to deal with fraud, but that is not my experience. In a recent debate outside the House, I was alarmed to find that a large group of people believe that those who commit fraud have some excuse for doing so. Often, the defrauders themselves believe that they have an excuse. That is why it is worth taking a moment or

two to reflect on the social effect of fraud within the system, and to consider why it should be dealt with by the Bill. If we failed to introduce such a measure, we would be failing to deal with the arguments that are advanced outside the House to try to justify benefit fraud.
One of the first obvious facts is that social security fraud is a misappropriation of public funds. Such an abuse must always be wrong, although people sometimes try the excuse that life is rough for those on benefit. However, such arguments do not recognise that life can be tough on all those who receive benefit, most of whom do not commit fraud. I it accept that people sometimes make mistakes. Indeed, I often met such people in my previous career and in my work in the voluntary sector, but I know that not all those who commit fraud will be in that position.
Recently, I visited the ONE centre in my constituency with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). I was impressed by the way in which the centre deals with benefit and saw how its methods can prevent some of the mistakes that are made. I also saw how well information technology was used and how successfully staff related to their clients. I noticed that clients were very responsive to the information, help and support that was given by ONE. Such help can go some way towards dealing with so-called mistakes. If we get the information right in the first place, we might help the whole process. I am pleased to have seen at first hand the benefits that can be provided to all concerned.
However, such schemes do not deal with the offenders—I call them offenders—who are persistently ripping everybody off. I think that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned the advertising campaign that has been conducted. I have seen people such as those depicted in the advertising campaigns in my constituency. Indeed I, I have received complaints about them and the effects of their actions. There is a far louder cry from those who deplore their behaviour than from those who support it, but I believe that we must nevertheless deal with the arguments of those who try excuse themselves or others from responsibility for such actions.
In the late 1970s, the early 1980s and towards the 1990s, when I was working in the Department, I often thought people on benefit had a very hard time. Jobs were hard to find and things were tough. When 3 million people were unemployed benefit was inaccessible and circumstances were more difficult, one could feel a little sympathy for people who were guilty of social security fraud. Even at that time, however, I would have said, "Look, there are hundreds and thousands of others in the same town or region as you. They, too, may have lost their job in the steelworks, in mining or in their local factory, but they are not doing the same thing." Such actions are not excusable, even in such tough circumstances, but there might at least have been some compassion when times were hard.
In 1997, at the beginning of my time in the House, the unemployment rate was 4.9 per cent. It is now down to 2.5 per cent. It was low in 1997, but it is now very low indeed, and it is continuing to fall. What excuse can a


person in my constituency have for benefit fraud? There are more jobs, so why are such people finding it difficult to find work?

Mr. Butterfill: I am listening attentively to what the hon. Lady is saying, and I agree with a great deal of it. Does she accept that people who commit fraud against the benefit system can rip off not only their fellow citizens, but charities too? A number of charities rely on an almonry process, and many of them rely on eligibility for state benefits to decide whom they should help. I am a trustee of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, which does exactly that; it gives fret veterinary care to people who are in receipt of state benefits. People who fraudulently claim benefit often fraudulently obtain the free veterinary care that we provide. Many other charities operate on the same basis, which means that benefit fraud can be a rip-off of the whole of society.

Kali Mountford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a domino effect when people start to commit fraud. My experience is that somebody will often start with a simple mistake, which is why the ONE project is so important. Many people make that one simple mistake, find that they get away with it and then move on to commit more serious breaches. The collusion with others to rip us off in such a manner is outrageous. In that respect, I should like to cite the "Kilroy" programme, although I hope that this is the first and last time I do so. Only a week ago, it featured a debate —which I saw—in which people defended such action on the grounds that they might want to buy Adidas shoes, for instance. They suggested that it was all right for them to act in that way, given the pressure to maintain a certain standard of living in today's society.
I would say to those people that we do not necessarily have a right to own goods of a particular brand. I think we all agree that there is a right to be decently clothed, fed and housed, but it seems that some of us have gone beyond that. It is regrettable that these to whom I refer were willing to act in such a way, and then to defend their actions.
I thought it worth pointing out tonight that fraud is wrong, and describing its effects, but I also want to say something about the employers who collude in such fraud. A measure of discontent has been expressed to me by employers who fear being involved in more red tape and bureaucracy, and having to deal with the Department more than they would wish to. I understand that—I have never encountered an employer who wanted to deal with any Department if he could avoid it—but I hear another view from employers in my area.
Let me cite two types of employer in particular, involved in industry and services respectively: those in construction and allied trades, and those working in private taxi hire companies. Both tell me that they know what is happening in another company further down the road, or in the next valley—the information is never specific enough to enable me to deal with the problem. I am told that certain people are picked up in the morning to be taken to work. Apparently, all the neighbours know about this—certainly those who art in the pub or the supermarket, or outside the post office
The employers I have mentioned are upset about such people, because they are trying to operate their businesses

on a level playing field. They are making national insurance contributions for their work force, and dealing properly with tax, health and safety regulations and all the other Government arrangements. They are working in a fair marketplace, in which they must price their services and goods appropriately. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers are colluding in benefit fraud. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, there is a domino effect: not just charities but the whole economy could be ripped off by such behaviour.
That brings me to another part of the Bill that I consider important—that on "two strikes", and how we are to deal with persistent offenders. I think that more support is available now than there used to be: there are more opportunities in an economic context, and advice is more available in the system than I have known it to be in my 22 years of dealing with benefits. I do not consider that mistakes that can have that domino effect on behaviour are as excusable as they seem to have been in the past.
Where does this take us? People to whom a mistake may have been pointed out in the first instance may have to repay overpaid benefit; if it is found that a clerk in the benefits office, or elsewhere, did not spot the mistake, those people may not even be asked to repay the amount. On a future occasion, some other mistake may occur. Again, information may be given outside a public house, or in a post office or supermarket. Those are the places where people seem to be given advice on benefits. I urge such people not to take advice anywhere but in the office with which they are dealing.
I meet people who say, "I was told by Fred Bloggs that if I worked only a certain number of hours a week, or earned only a certain amount, I would not have to declare the amount. I made an honest mistake." I tell them that, under the system as it is now, that excuse is not credible. Those in regard to whom we might want to apply a "two strikes and out" arrangement will have had quite enough connection with the system as a whole to know that their behaviour is wrong. By that time, they must have received sufficient advice to be aware that their actions would result in certain consequences.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked whether the "two strikes" provision was over-harsh. I agree with him that the benefits system contains a number of sanctions, intended both to deter and to punish; but another form of punishment is imprisonment, which is also available in the system. Surely it is better for the family of an offender for the offender not to be removed but—if he or she is working and continuing to claim—to formalise the arrangement, and find a proper job.
In all our debates the hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be a compassionate man, and I have some sympathy with his view, but I am worried about the problem affecting families. In generations of families, reliance on the so-called alternative economy has become the norm. We must break that cycle, and if we impose no sanctions of any kind—or if the alternative sanction is imprisonment—I am not sure that we will do families any more good than we would by imposing the sanction of reduced benefit. I think that 13 weeks is the standard period involved in such sanctions. It has proved to be of some value for a number of years, and I think it appropriate.
Conservative Members, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), have expressed criticisms, suggesting that sanctions and controls could be taken further—into the area of organised crime. The Bill is not designed to deal with organised crime, but I welcome the work that has been done with regard to fraud overseas. When I worked in the benefits system, I dealt with reciprocal arrangements involving people coming here from overseas and clients going overseas, either for a holiday or, ostensibly, to look for work and to review their arrangements.
It is remarkably difficult to keep track of such people, and to know exactly what is happening. I have received reports of people setting up tents and caravans while ostensibly searching for work, having already found work that they are not declaring. I am pleased that the Bill contains provisions to deal with that. I have some sympathy with the idea of extending the provisions to international crime—the sort of fraud mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—and to the same kind of crime in this country. I have heard of examples, and I think we have no excuse for not dealing with such matters now.
I welcome the Bill and the present spirit of conciliation throughout the House, although at times I felt we were almost on gladiatorial terms. I also thank the hon. Member for Havant, if I thank him for nothing else today, for reminding me that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), will soon be leaving us. I can hardly believe that. I experienced a Freudian moment in which I did not want to remember it, and I was rather surprised to be reminded of it today.
I have not been in the House for long; I have been here for barely four years. In that time, however, I have had several opportunities to work with my right hon. Friend, and I admire him greatly. I do not want to make him blush any more than he has already, for he is a modest man and is probably sick of our going on about this, but having received the reminder, I do not want to miss the opportunity of telling him what a pleasure it has been to work with him, how much I have learned from him and what a remarkable parliamentarian I think he has been—not just in my four years here. Like the hon. Member for Northavon, I knew who was and was not worth watching when I was not here, and my right hon. Friend was always the man to watch.

8 pm

Mr. John Butterfill: There is a danger that this debate may develop into a eulogy to the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but I would like to add my personal congratulations to him on his parliamentary career, because this may be the last opportunity that I shall have to do so in a debate. What he has done in his present Department has been quite outstanding.
More particularly, I remember the right hon. Gentleman in his role on housing, a period when he and I crossed swords on more than one occasion. The contribution that he has made to the development of housing policy—in particular, to the maturity with which the Labour party

now approaches the issue of the private rented sector, and to the recognition of the contribution that it can make—has been extremely valuable. 1 should like to take this opportunity to thank him, and to congratulate him on behalf of us all on that element of his work.
It is always difficult to speak after the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. He and I tend to agree on many of the issues on which we jointly speak: on pensions, for example, and other matters. It is particularly difficult for me to speak after him this evening, because he said just about everything that I wanted to say in my own speech. I should like to pick up some of the points that he made, particularly the emphasis that he placed on the pernicious influence of organised fraud on social security benefits.
According to the raw statistics on national insurance numbers, which were discussed earlier, there are some 82 million national insurance numbers, but only 48 million people of employable age. That leaves a difference of 34 million. It is difficult to believe that that difference could be entirely due to factors such as the national insurance numbers given to people under employment age for various reasons; the national insurance numbers that are continued in respect of deceased persons for certain reasons; and the national insurance numbers that are given to temporary foreign workers.
That last factor relates to a legitimate activity. In my constituency in Bournemouth, there are a large number of language schools. In the summer, a great many students come over to attend the schools, mainly from other parts of the EU. Many of them want to work part-time while they are here, as they are perfectly entitled to, as citizens of the European Union. They get a national insurance number, they retain it and it remains on the system. That is perfectly appropriate. However, it is difficult to believe that those rather limited examples, which may explain some of the difference, could amount to a difference of 34 million national insurance numbers. This is a serious problem, and it needs to be addressed.
The Bill goes some way towards addressing those issues and helping to reduce the clear element of fraud demonstrated by those numbers, and to that extent I welcome it. There has been some dispute about the level of fraud, but most people seem to agree that it is worth about £7 billion a year, although it is difficult to quantify exactly. These are huge numbers, and the burden that that fraud places on ordinary, decent, hard-working people is colossal. That is unfair on the many people who pay their taxes.
Many of my constituents are elderly, and a large proportion of them are retired. Many of them continue to pay tax, but in doing so they are often supporting people who are deliberately defrauding the system: the people about whom we are concerned. We are not so concerned about those who make innocent errors, or who find the system extremely complex. Most of us have had people come to our constituency surgeries and say, "I just didn't understand. It was all too complicated, and I made an error when I filled in the form. I didn't know I was supposed to let them know when certain events occurred and I failed to do it."
Many of my elderly constituents are confused about the system and they make innocent errors. They are not the people about whom we are concerned. Indeed, the Bill


proposes ways of mitigating the effect for those who make innocent errors, even more than once. We are, however, concerned about those who deliberately set out to defraud the system and their fellow citizens. Given the scale of the fraud, the effect that it has on everyone else, and the way in which it denies us the opportunity to spend public money on other things that we all consider desirable—health, education or whatever—there is an urgent need to tackle the problem.
I therefore welcome the additional powers in the Bill to obtain information. I also welcome the ability to use electronic access to data, although I shall say a little more about that later. There are some concerns about those additional powers, especially about how they will operate with those who will be providing a co-operative system with the Government.
We know from the responses of organisations such as the British Bankers Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders and from the telecoms companies and others that they are worried that they will have to bear an irrecoverable financial cost as a result of the information that they provide. They also feel that it is a little unfair that they operate systems now at considerable expense, and that, by co-operating with the Government, they will get no benefit in return.
The suggestion by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that we should participate in organisations such as the credit industry fraud avoidance system is a good one. That would make it much more palatable for those who are co-operating in this way. Let us make no mistake: extremely sophisticated systems are now available that can reduce fraud dramatically. The telecoms companies have now put in place very sophisticated computer-based systems that can detect up to 80 per cent. of fraud. It would be a great advantage to everyone if we could get close to even half that percentage in relation to social security fraud through the use of those systems. The Government will need to look carefully at the way in which the agencies are reimbursed for the costs that they will undoubtedly bear in co-operating.
Similarly, I welcome the ability to co-operate, albeit limited, with overseas authorities. There is no doubt that much of the organised fraud is transnational. Gangs of people are being brought into this country, and they are defrauding the system. Organised criminals are bringing in so-called asylum seekers, and exploiting them and the benefit system. I want those people dealt with.
I do not like the idea that people operate middleman agencies to place genuine—or possibly genuine—asylum seekers on behalf of one authority in another. In Bournemouth, a lot of people are placed in hotels and guest houses on behalf of London and Kent local authorities through a middleman agency based in Eastbourne. It takes a cut of the money that the Government and the taxpayer provide to support those people, but we did not institute such support payments for the unfortunate people who may be genuine asylum seekers in order for some middleman company to take a cut on the way. I hope that that is one of the first problems that we will start to eliminate by making the whole process illegal; and if the Government can amend the Bill to achieve it, they will do a service to the whole community.
Although I welcome the Bill, I have to say that it is too little, too late. The Secretary of State referred to the ancient computer systems that the Government inherited when they took over in 1997. There is no doubt that some were pretty old, but the problem is that systems age very quickly. Those that we bought for ourselves or our children only three or four years ago look terribly out of date today and no doubt the ones that we are buying this year will look even more out of date a year from now. The whole industry is moving at an incredible rate. We must therefore continually update systems with the best possible technology that we can afford—but I am not sure that the Government have done that.
Before Christmas, I visited my local Department of Social Security office, following which I wrote to the Secretary of State. I had the courtesy of a reply from his colleague, the Under-Secretary. It is worth pointing out the difficulties under which such offices labour and about which 1 wrote to the Secretary of State in November. The breakdown of the national computer system caused enormous difficulties and obviously contributed to making fraud easier.
Furthermore, inadequate information technology systems are in place. The Benefits Agency has the following: an income support system, a personal details system, a jobseeker's allowance system, a pensions system, an incapacity benefit system, a departmental central index and a repayment depository. With the exception of the personal details system, none is capable of interfacing with any other. I accept that that was the case when the Government came to office four years ago. but it is still the case today and four years is a long time, particularly in respect of updating IT systems. The Government have been slow to deal with a problem that was getting progressively worse.
The filing system that may be needed to combat fraud is even more worrying. To this day, the one in my local office is paper based. Furthermore, only a limited number of records are held in Bournemouth; the rest are sent off to remote storage in Devon. If people need access to the system to check records, papers have to be transported from Devon to Bournemouth.
How long would any private financial services company survive with systems and filing systems of such antiquity? We know the answer: it would not survive at all. As custodians of the public purse, the House and, in particular, the Government have a duty to ensure that the systems are such that they protect the financial interests of our citizens, but they do not do so at the moment.
The Under-Secretary's letter to me said that
the Chancellor announced that £1.87 billion over the next three years
would be spent
in modernising the Social Security system, including the replacement of Information Technology systems.
So over the next three years, part of that £1.87 billion may be spent to update IT systems. She continued:
The new IT will help reduce the cost of benefit fraud and error"—
we must not forget error—
by over —1 billion a year by 2005/2006.
The money is unlikely to achieve any savings, nor will it be spent during this Government's first four years. It will not even be spent in their first six years, but we may be


there by the seventh and we may realise some benefits by 2005 or 2006. There is a broad cross-party consensus here, but the Government have to bear some responsibility for the fact that it will be 2005 or 2006, on their own admission, before any improvement in IT systems helps us to prevent benefit fraud.
The problems of organised crime described by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead occur in my own constituency. In my letter to the Secretary of State, I pointed out that areas such as mine, which have an unusually large transient population, are particularly prone to such difficulties. Some people move to the holiday areas in winter, when accommodation is available, and then move on. Others are attracted there in summer by casual work in the tourism industry. There is a high turnover of people and that, of itself, allows for fraud and organised fraud.
Believe it or not, there are those who organise transient workers. In areas such as mine, where that tends to be a problem, we need to apply more resources. Such areas also contain large numbers of asylum seekers and there is no doubt in my mind that in many cases organised gangs bring people in and then "employ" them. We have seen examples of that reported in the national press—it is a pernicious activity, because they are organised into crime, prostitution or sweated labour that pays poor wages, yet the maximum benefit possible is claimed for them by people who can only be described as gangmasters.
For all those reasons, we must concentrate resources where such activity occurs, but the Bill will not achieve that. Although there is a national problem, there are particular local difficulties in certain towns and cities in the United Kingdom. We must achieve a determination to target resource where it is most likely to bear fruit, but there is no clear evidence that that is what the Government intend. I welcome the Bill and the degree to which it will contribute to solving the problem, but we must consider a lot of other measures for the elimination or substantial reduction of benefit fraud.

Mr. Paul Goggins: If I fail to pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at this point in the debate, he and other hon. Members may believe that I am snubbing him. His most outstanding characteristic, which he has displayed over many years in the House, most recently in government, is his ability to keep his head connected to his heart. That has been immensely valuable to his constituents and to the country.
I shall make only a short contribution, but I want to convey the view that my constituents have expressed to me over the past four years. They say that they are fed up with having approximately £6 million a year stolen from them. If we accept the reasonable assessment of £4 billion of fraud annually, £6 million would constitute the share that they were paying. That is enough to give every child in my constituency an annual grant of £200, with plenty left over to support a range of other activities. The amount is therefore substantial, and my constituents feel strongly about it. Most of them play fair most of the time, and they earn their cash the hard way. They are fed up with the few who cheat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) referred to an old argument, which sought to justify working on the side. In the mid-1980s, unemployment pushed 4 million at times, it was impossible in many parts of the country to find a job, benefits were inadequate and many people were forced to live below the poverty line. It could be argued that it was okay then for people to work a fiddle to feed their families and keep their heads above water.
In all honesty, I am pleased that I never had to make that choice. I would not have been at ease in choosing to work a fiddle for two reasons. First, I am old fashioned enough to believe that it is wrong to take something that does not belong to me. Secondly, I am perhaps enough of a politician to believe that if the system is wrong, we should try to change it rather than cheat it.
I have never supported the old argument that I outlined, but even if it were justifiable sometimes, it does not apply today. Unemployment is less than 1 million, and there are more job vacancies than people who are registered unemployed and claiming benefit. We have a new deal for young people, older workers, lone parents and disabled people. There is new investment in training and a range of other actions that are intended to make work pay. They include the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the 10p starting rate of tax. The Government have made it possible to work, and they have made it pay to work It is therefore right to deal with those who cheat the system.
In his report entitled "The Informal Economy", Lord Grabiner estimates that at any one time approximately 120,000 people work and claim benefit. In every case, somebody—a neighbour, a relative or colleague—knows about it. We must therefore change the culture. Earlier, Conservative Members commented on the advertising campaign, but together we must try to find methods of encouraging people to feel sufficiently confident to articulate what they know to be true: it is not acceptable to turn a blind eye, pretend not to know and try to justify such actions. It is equally unjustifiable to pay people to do foreigners and avoid paying VAT. That also constitutes unacceptable fraud.
Like other hon. Members, I hear a steady stream of tales from people in my constituency about those who are apparently too ill to work but happen to be fit enough to climb a ladder and paint the house. Such people are blatantly working and claiming at the same time. Lord Grabiner estimates that 40 per cent. of income support and jobseeker's allowance fraud arises from undeclared earnings. The Bill is important because it serves notice that such practices must become a thing of the past.
The Bill has another important purpose: restoring confidence in and respect for the welfare system, which most people want to support. However, they want the proceeds to be used honestly. The measure introduces new powers and there has been some consensus about exchanging information with banks and agencies in other countries, sharing information with those who administer housing benefit and council tax benefit, allowing electronic access and, of course, tackling unscrupulous employers.
Another crucial aspect of the Bill is that it will penalise those who are caught fiddling twice in three years. Clause 9 is important because it protects the dependants of those who are caught out; there is no reason for them to suffer. However, those who flout the rules should suffer.
There is much talk inside and outside the House about the cost of fraud to the taxpayer and the savings that can be made. The Government are taking action against fraud, and I take slight exception to the n marks of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who referred to the number of sanctions against benefit fraud. He said that the current average was 10,000 a year. However, he failed to include the 10,000 more people who receive cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution. Their fraudulent behaviour is also tackled. The figure is therefore 20,000 a year, not 10,000.
Like all social security measures, some of the provisions are complicated. I am sure that the Standing Committee will have an interesting time debating the Bill's detail. However, all hon. Members should support the Bill because it is a standard bearer for honesty, which we should all try to protect.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I join other speakers in paying tribute to the Minister of State. He is one of the rare Members who leave behind them an eponymous provision; in this case, the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment, for which the right hon. Gentleman was famous. He has made his mark through a combination of pugnacity and conviction. He has been willing to stand up to his party when he believed that it was wrong, and he was one of the few in the Labour party who had the wisdom to perceive the virtue of selling council houses. However, he was unable to persuade his party of it. That left us a clear run, and I am therefore grateful to him for failing to convince his party, much as I am impressed by his foresight.
The Minister of State is also unusual because the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) used to say that he wanted to resemble him when he grew up. When he grows up, he may well resemble the right hon. Gentleman. I am not being rude to the hon. Member For Northavon, who has the great advantage of looking eternally young.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is no longer in the Chamber. He always plays a distinguished part in debates on this subject, and had the courage to say things about the importance of tackling fraud and abuse that were unpopular with his party, and when it was not fashionable to do so.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) brought to this debate, as he brings to all debates, a combination of compassion and conviction. He has sufficient integrity to recognise that it is important to distinguish between those who deserve benefits and should receive them and those who are fraudulently abusing the system. Although the hon. Gentleman and I approach the problem with different practical remedies, we both want the money to go to the people who need it and have a right to it. We are conscious that every penny taken in fraud means a penny less to help those in need.
I am afraid that I cannot extend my general paean of praise to the Secretary of State for Social Security, whose speech I found, frankly, disappoiniing. It might have passed muster as a contribution from a first-time Labour candidate in a hopeless seat, reading out a misleading brief from Walworth road, but it did not really rise much above that standard.
I want to put the Bill in context. It is a small contribution to the important subject of tackling fraud—a major aspect of welfare reform that is centre stage in most

developed countries, and rightly so. Social security is the biggest thing that modern Governments provide. In this country, spending on social security has, over 50 years, grown twice as fast, year in, year out, as national income. It has been taking a rising share of our national income and has been the main factor in driving up the burden of taxes and charges on those in employment.
The previous Government introduced a series of reforms that, for the first time, put social security spending as a share of national income on a downward path over the medium and longer term, giving scope to reduce taxes and increase expenditure on other matters. I fear that much of the momentum of those reforms has been lost under this Government. They have maintained some semblance of a downward movement in the share of national income going to social security only by redefining a lot of things previously counted as social security as negative taxation, in the shape of credits, or by taking them off the budget, as in the back to work programmes.
If we are to tackle the problem of growth in the social security budget, we must understand the source of the growth. It is not primarily because of increased generosity in the level of benefits over the years. Instead, it is due, very largely, to the increasing number of people claiming benefit and staying on benefit for an increasingly long time.
There are a variety of reasons why more people are claiming benefits, and claiming them for longer. Many of them are legitimate; some are the direct and intended result of Government policy. We are proud, as a party, to have extended the eligibility to disability benefits to a category of people previously not entitled to them. That inevitably brings them into the welfare system. I have always thought that if there is one group of people whom we should be proud and pleased to help through the social security system it is those who are, through disability, unable to share in the general prosperity of the marketplace.
We must recognise that one reason for the growing number of claimants is a growing culture of fraud and abuse. It has happened gradually, over the decades, almost without perception. It certainly was not the deliberate intention of any Government.
It seemed to me, having reached that stage in the analysis, that the previous Government could tackle the problem of fraud and abuse only by measuring it effectively. The Secretary of State repeatedly said, in a tone of disdain, that we did not even start to measure the level of fraud until 1995. That is like saying that the inventor of the jet engine in 1945 did not use jets before he had invented them. No one else had invented them either. It is like saying that the inventor of the wheel had not used the wheel before he had invented it.
I imagine that, like me, all my predecessors asked their officials how much fraud there was in the system and were told, "How can we possibly tell you that?" Fraud is a victimless crime—at least, it is a crime without an individual victim, so it is not reported. It is a crime that, by its very nature, is concealed. How can anyone know how much fraud is in the system? No Government in this or any other country, I was told, have ever been able to measure the level of fraud.
Indirect estimates have been made of the level of fraud. Similar estimates of the size of the black economy, for example, take into account the number of bank notes in


circulation. No direct measure of fraud had ever been made, which I found extremely unsatisfactory. It just so happened that in one of my previous careers—when, as my mother put it, I had a proper job—I was involved in market research, so I was familiar with the idea of surveys. It also happened—again by chance—that I found a reference in a Dutch journal on social affairs to a blanket attack that had been made on all benefit claimants in one part of a small Dutch town. Everyone had simply been hauled in to be assessed for their entitlement to benefit because it was thought that fraud was so rife in the area. I cannot remember the results, but I thought that if we could take a statistically representative sample of claimants and investigate their conditions in great detail, we could establish the level of fraud.
Initially, there was great resistance to the idea, including from the then Labour Opposition, who thought it would involve summoning innocent people—sending in a friendly local benefit fraud investigator to treat them as though they were potential fraudsters to establish whether they were.
When we introduced the system, we were worried that it would produce a negative and hostile reaction. I am happy to say that it did not. When we set up the panels of 1,000 or more claimants on each benefit, established all the details that we held on them internally and then visited them, often unannounced, they were only too happy to help in the vast majority of cases. The innocent people were happy to help. If they inquired why they were being singled out and what was going on, they were told that it was part of a measure to establish the level of fraud and abuse. They were keen to help because they recognised that if other people were abusing the system, it was their money that was being taken—it was society's money that was being misused. There was virtually no resistance to the area benefit reviews, as they became known when we set them up.
The reviews were extremely helpful and enabled us to establish the aggregate amount of fraud by benefit, by type of fraud and by characteristics of the claimant. Above all, they gave us a benchmark of the level of fraud for each. Once we had set up the system, we could measure the success or failure of Government measures to reduce the growth of fraud and, we hope, to reverse it and bring about a decline in fraud.
This Government have by and large continued those reviews. Apparently, they stopped them for family credit on the assumption that there would be no fraud in the working families tax credit—a ludicrous assumption, since the equivalent tax credit in Canada abandoned because it was found to be so prone to fraud. The Canadians have reverted to the equivalent of family credit. In other areas, the Government have continued regular assessments of the level of fraud—they could scarcely do otherwise. The results have not been flattering.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State—hoping that he could bamboozle us—claimed that the level of fraud had gone down. In fact, the figures show that in the past two benefit reviews the level of confirmed fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance has risen. He was able to claim a fall only by including errors. He is the first person who has pleaded errors to excuse fraud, or the failure to reduce it.
Undeterred, the right hon. Gentleman then claimed—he is nothing if not brazen—that the fall in fraud and errors was significant. However, the House of Commons Library has produced a report in which it explicitly says that the fall is not significant. The Public Accounts Committee considered the matter and noted that even if the rate is—as the Government claim—edging down, it is not doing so to a significant extent.
The Secretary of State was mistaken on that front, too. It is sad that he is not man enough to admit his error and acknowledge to the House that benefits surveys confirm that fraud has risen. Any fall in fraud and errors combined is not statistically significant. Indeed, although the estimated total of fraud and error for income support and jobseeker's allowance is £993 million, the Government say that the figure is really somewhere between £892 million and £1.096 billion. That is a wide range, so to suggest that a fall of about 6 per cent. is statistically significant is not to use that term as it is normally understood.
If the Government had failed only in that respect, it would be serious enough, they have also missed their targets for identifying and detecting fraud during most of their years in office—indeed, in every year. I think they may have met their recent targets—probably by making them less stringent. They have also abolished, or abandoned, several measures that we introduced to raise the profile and change the culture of abuse.
The Government abandoned the spotlight on fraud campaign, whereby all the agencies in an area combined, in a highly publicised way, to identify and attack fraud to bring home to everyone that we were serious about tackling it. That has gone by the board.
The Secretary of State has downplayed the beat-a-cheat hotline on which people could report evidence of fraud to the Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, the DSS no longer even includes the hotline number on the ill-designed advertisements that supposedly highlight its willingness to tackle fraud. Indeed it was not until I tabled questions on the rate of response to the hotline that the Government were prodded into reviving some publicity for it, to try to increase the rate.
Overall, the Government show clearly that they are soft on fraud, which is why fraud is rising again. However, because they are above all a Government of spin doctors, they know that they must convince the electorate that they are serious about these measures. That is why they have introduced the Bill just ahead of the election. Some symbolism is required to demonstrate their concern to stop social security fraud. That is also why they are spending a great deal of taxpayers' money on a rather ineffectual—even by their own measures—advertising campaign; it is being mounted for electoral rather than operational purposes. Indeed, I am surprised that it got past the Cabinet Secretary—the head of the civil service—who polices such matters and who would, I am sure, have had words with us if we had proposed heavy expenditure on such dubious advertising just before an election. However, perhaps he knows that an election will not be called, so thac is all right.
By contrast, when we were in power, we systematically set about making changes to try to get on top of the problem of fraud. I appointed a senior official who—for the first time—had sole and exclusive responsibility for


tackling fraud in the Benefits Agency. A specific Minister in the Department also had such responsibility. I set up, by law, an inspectorate with powers to advise local authorities and Departments on best practice in tackling fraud. We laid out a coherent strategy—from one end of the benefit pipeline to the other—to secure the process of delivering benefit against fraud.
We were conscious that it would take a long time to redesign the whole process to make it more secure, but we began that programme. We raised the profile by introducing programmes such as beat—a—cheat and the spotlight programme, by setting targets and, of course, by planning the introduction of the benefit card, to which I shall return.
I want to focus now on the measures in the Bill. In some ways it follows on from the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which I introduced, but there is a difference between that measure and this. My Act covered information that was already in the hands of different parts of the Government. It removed unintended barriers to the use of that information and to cross-checking it between, for example, the tax authorities and benefit authorities. It did not require individuals or companies to make available any additional information over and above that which they were already required to provide to different Government Departments.
The 1997 Act placed no extra burden on business and did not involve any extra intrusions into people's privacy. I did not go that far because I was apprehensive about going any further. I did not rule it out, but I wanted to see first whether the measures that I had introduced were effective, and whether the gains from them were of a magnitude and nature to suggest that we might extend the powers to allow us to obtain information from the private sector as well. I did not go that far initially because I am always reluctant, unless it cannot possibly be avoided, to impose extra burdens on business and individuals or to intrude further into the privacy of individuals and give the state more knowledge about them than it already has.
I shall ask the Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, some questions about his Bill. In calculating the burden that the Bill will place on the private sector, he estimates that the costs could be up to £7 million. That is in some ways quite a modest sum but I want to know a little more about how the figure was calculated. I understand from the hon. Member for Northavon that it assumed that 800,000 inquiries would be made, and the report says that savings totalling about £180 million will arise from it. That assumes that each inquiry costs about £9 to make and yields £225 of benefit savings. I am open to rectification if my arithmetic is wrong—without a calculator, arithmetic is not my strongest suit. I am okay with algebra, but I sometimes make mistakes in arithmetic.
Is the Secretary of State saying that 800,000 investigations will be made, each of which will find, on average, £225 of fraud? If so, the measure is expected to be extremely fruitful and I should like to know the basis for that expectation and calculation. Is it based at all on any analysis of how the 1997 Act has worked?
I should like to know whether any attempt was made to establish how effective the 1997 Act has been. It seemed sensible, and the whole House agreed that it was reasonable to enable the authorities to cross-check, for example, whether people were declaring income for the

purposes of income tax but telling the Benefits Agency that they had no income, or whether they were declaring VAT while they were claiming that they were unemployed rather than, in some cases, actually in business and making a VAT claim. Now that we have had three or four years' experience, we should really know how effective the Act has been. Have the inquiries made under it led to savings of the suggested magnitude? I hope that the Government have considered that matter, rather than simply rushing off, plucking a number out of thin air and saying that it represents the savings that will be made under the Bill.
Under the Bill, will it be possible to carry out trawls? Will it be possible to cross-check a category of claimants' information against the information from one of the external sources to which the Government gain access, or will that happen case by case, individual by individual? Do the Government think that, each year, there will be inquiries about 800,000 people, about whom they can make individual inquiries to the banks or credit card agencies, and so on, to establish the reality?
The main use that we expected to make of the 1997 Act was precisely in data matching and in cross-checking categories of claimants who produce information on their income tax and VAT returns and on their social security benefit claims, and in finding out how the figures reconciled. It seems that the Government have said in the other place that they would be very limited in their use of any power to trawl, but I may have misinterpreted what has been said, and I should be happy to give way now. If no Minister wants to intervene, I hope that when they have found out what they promised to do about that, they will inform the House in the winding-up speech.
Without trawls—by which I mean the cross-matching of data—the measures that the Government propose will probably be of only limited use. I very much doubt whether they will achieve the savings that the Government claim in the documents associated with the Bill. The Government certainly seem far more willing to intrude into the private financial affairs of individuals and to make use of such information in the public sector domain than they ever were about the information that they possessed on the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), when information about his financial affairs fell into the hands of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There seems to be a disparity between the way in which they treat their own kind and the way in which they intend to treat benefit claimants, the vast majority of whom are as innocent as the day is long and are entitled to the benefits that they receive, but who, none the less, may be subject to investigation under the Bill.
How can the Bill be reconciled with the Human Rights Act 1998? I am not a great supporter of that Act. This place should establish the balance between different rights. All rights have to be balanced against one another, but it should not be left to judges to interpret, largely subjectively, a document that is, inevitably, somewhat arbitrary, and the implications of which may not have been foreseen.
Liberty, which has lobbied us, refers to a Swedish case that casts doubt on whether the Bill will be fully


compatible with the Human Rights Act. It states that in the judgment in the case of MS v. Sweden, made in August 1997,
the Court held that there was an interference with the applicant's rights under article 8 where details of her medical records were passed by a state-run medical centre to a government department investigating her claim for a workplace injury.
That seems rather similar to what is proposed under the Bill.
I understand that the Court may have subsequently concluded that it was permissible to invade people's human rights in that way because of the criminal and civil sanctions incurred if any of the safeguards on the use of that data were breached. I am not certain that that would necessarily be the case in any parallel use of the powers in the Bill; nor can we be certain that the courts will not interpret such matters more onerously as time goes by. The very nature of the human rights legislation means that it is left to the judges to develop and create their own law according to the philosophies that pervade the courts at any moment. Therefore, we might find that the Bill falls foul of the Human Rights Act. If it does, we can respond as we think fit and say that the Government have been hoist by their own petard.
Another element in the Bill deserves comment. The "two strikes and you're out" proposal seems to be a severe punishment for someone guilty of a modest element of abuse of the system. He might be entitled to social security benefit, but he might have failed to report the very small sums that he has earned on the side. If he loses his benefit, he will suffer greatly. However, the more serious fraudster——[Interruption.] This is not a debating point; I am talking about people who might face great hardship because the only resource that they can rely on is hardship benefit.
If a serious, professional fraudster, who robs the system of large sums of money by claiming a benefit to which he is not entitled even though he has a job and income of his own, loses his benefit, he will ask, "So what?" He will not lose substantially; it is not a serious punishment for him. The punishment sounds tough and draconian, but it falls harshly only on the least serious offenders.
Will the Minister tell me whether my interpretation is correct? The punishment will not have a serious impact on the professional, multiple claimant fraudster, but it will bear heavily on the small guy, who twice in three years, fails to mention that he did a "bob-a-job" for someone around the corner. I may be wrong because the sanction may apply only to those with a criminal conviction and who have been taken to court for such an offence. In that case, the provision will be limited, because the vast majority of people who are guilty of social security fraud are not taken to court.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the "frauds" that I often hear about in my surgery occurs when someone carries out a short piece of work that, if declared, would remove him from benefit for six months. That seems to invite the type of fraud that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Lilley: Let me make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend and I would not suggest that even small frauds

can be excused or exonerated. They are wrong and we should use strong measures to ensure that they are eliminated. We should try to change the culture and take steps to prevent and detect such frauds. Those who defraud the system in that way must pay either through an administrative or criminal process, but the punishment should reflect the severity of the offence and should not be designed to attract good headlines or be imposed simply at the behest of spin doctors rather than those who know how best to run the system.
Several other issues have been raised in the debate. One is the old faithful of national insurance numbers. I have some sympathy for Ministers when they are faced with the apparently alarming disparity between the 82 million national insurance numbers that have been issued and the 48 million people of working age and the 56 million in the total population. At first sight, it implies that there are 26 million criminals or, at least, 26 million identities claimed by criminals. However, the very size of the discrepancy indicates that that is not the case; it means that the causes must be major. As I recall, one cause is the fact that we keep people on the computer system after they have died because their widows and other surviving relatives may be entitled to benefits. There are also millions of people who have worked in this country for a time and then gone abroad, and their numbers remain on the computer.
If there were a small discrepancy between the number issued and the number of people at work, that would be much more worrying because it might be attributable to the crime that we fear may be prevalent. Obviously, there is an element of national insurance number fraud and cases of people creating false identities. I began a process of tightening up the national insurance system to make fraud more difficult, and I am pretty sure that the Government have continued the process with the officials who have worked throughout that time. I hope that fraud is becoming more and more difficult. By no stretch of the imagination can we suppose that there are 26 million false numbers created by criminals.
I understand why people raise the issue, and I hope that Ministers will publish the reconciliation between the number of people in the population and the number of national insurance numbers. The Secretary of State gave the wrong explanation for that discrepancy. It is not because of the extension of national insurance numbers to women and children because they are part of the population, although that seems to have escaped him. It is because of other factors, principally those that I mentioned.
There is misunderstanding also about organised fraud. It is a serious problem, which often involves large sums, and it is important that we tackle it. We now have specialist units homing in on it. However, it is important to recognise, as I am, sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will, that it does not account for the major part of benefit fraud, which is committed on a small scale by individuals who are working and claiming, living together and claiming separately, not declaring assets or committing order book and giro fraud and theft.
That brings me to the benefit payment card. The Secretary of State said that it was a great disaster that the Government had inherited, but in fact it was a disaster that they seemed to allow to develop over a couple of years. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who as the Minister responsible for the Post Office was


responsible for reporting to the Trade and Industry Committee on the matter, repeatedly told the Committee that the development of the benefit payment card was going well and would be completed on time, if not entirely within budget.
The process clearly did get behind during that period, which was probably because of bad management and lack of ministerial involvement. The Government were more interested in giving complacent reports to the Committees—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) got rapped over the knuckles for trying to pull the wool over its eyes—than in jumping up and down on officials to establish what was going on and to make sure that the project was brought to a successful conclusion. The Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Trade and Industry had both teen Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the Treasury had never liked the project, so they closed it down summarily. We have lost it, at least for as long as the Government remain in power.
That is sad not only because the benefit payment card would have been an effective way of restricting fraud, by eliminating theft and the use of the order book and giro system, but because a related part of the system was the customer automatic payment programme, which set up an individual account for each claimant, so that all the benefits that they might receive could be dealt with together. That was going well. It was more or less on time and on budget. However, it seems to have lapsed. If that is not the case, I would be happy for Ministers to set me right. The programme had a great deal of potential and was an intrinsic part of creating a secure benefits system from start to finish for the process of allocating benefits.
The Bill at best makes a small contribution to a major problem. When I was in Slovakia, I went to see the little Tatra mountains. The tourist literature said, "Come to the little Tatra mountains, the biggest small mountains in the world." The Bill is the biggest small contribution that the Government can make to the elimination of fraud. However, any contribution is welcome, especially from such a source. I shall not oppose it, but I hope that after the general election my hon. Friend the Member for Havant will be in charge of the Department. He will give renewed momentum to the battle against fraud and to the reform of the welfare system, as he is singularly well equipped to do.

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who spoke with such knowledge and ability. It is a great shame for the country that he was not able to carry on beyond 1997 the good work that he started in the previous Government. It is clear from his contribution that we would have got on top of the problems with his common-sense approach.
I understand that the debate is a farewell show for the Minister of State. I, too, pay tribute to him. We spent many long productive hours discussing local authority legislation. Above all, he will be remembered for bluntly telling the Prime Minister and the Labour party that they were wrong about the dome. He had the courage of his convictions, saying that he would never visit it because it should have been in Birmingham.
Since the Government came to power, we have fast become a nation of rip-off merchants. The Bill is another attempt to tweak the system by dealing with trivial

matters, but fraud is rife. We heard today that the foot and mouth outbreak is thought to have started because of the illegal import of meat. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) recently spoke in the House about the fact that the illegal importation of immigrants and asylum seekers has reached epidemic proportions. We know that the illegal import of tobacco, alcohol, fuel and drugs is higher than ever.
The Bill addresses the problem of £7 billion of social security fraud. It is important to tackle that, but why have the Government allowed fraud to develop elsewhere? I have spoken before about tobacco fraud. Once people get into the business of being able to defraud the taxpayer, they also feel free to defraud the social security system. They become fraudsters. It is amazing that in the Government's first year, the yield from tobacco tax was about £8.4 billion. This year, it is £7.4 billion despite the fact that smoking has increased and the tax on cigarettes has risen by a third.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak for a few minutes on such matters, but he must now confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Chope: I am trying to illustrate my argument by referring to other issues with which the Government have or have not dealt. Social security fraud is a substantial problem, but the Government's policies are making it worse. They are encouraging many people to become fraudsters because it is a way to make sufficient money.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has some justification for his line of argument. I live in Kent. and it is well known that vans cross the channel two or three times a day. They are driven by people who have nothing else to do. I have no doubt that many of those people are claiming benefit because the activity in which they are engaged is one that they cannot conceivably declare to the authorities. They therefore have to pretend that they are unemployed.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for making that point. The issues of tobacco fraud and the smuggling of immigrants, alcohol and fuel are inextricably linked with the lawlessness that the Government have encouraged through their taxation policies.
The Government say that they will be able to make savings by reducing social security fraud, but the evidence suggests that the savings will be nothing like those that could be made if the Government had a more realistic policy on tobacco fraud. It is estimated that that fraud is costing £3 billion a year. In a written question that was answered today, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set for the reduction of smuggling of tobacco, alcohol and fuel—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded the hon. Gentleman once—this is the second time—that he must confine his remarks to social security fraud. He has given the example of tobacco fraud. He must now restrict his comments to social security fraud.

Mr. Chope: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government talk about joined-up government. We are debating the Bill on Second Reading. It is not a Third Reading debate and we are not considering the Bill on Report. We are discussing the Government's priorities, and the Government are putting enormous emphasis on the Bill. They are putting too much emphasis on it while neglecting other issues.
I shall finish the point that I was making. In answer to my question to the Chancellor about the targets that he had set—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to restrict his comments to the content of the Bill. We are, indeed, considering it on Second Reading, but it is about social security fraud.

Mr. Chope: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden touched on infringements of civil liberties. The Bill contains amazing and draconian powers to deal with supposed social security fraudsters. I fear that the Bill, as with so much other Government legislation, will have unintended consequences. I suspect that many more people will rely on cash transactions, avoiding anything going through the bank so that they cannot be the subject of a record that social security investigators can require to be produced.
The House will be pleased to know that we are law-abiding in Christchurch, but that does not mean that there are not instances of social security and other fraud. However, those instances pale into insignificance when compared with the number of cases of maladministration. I should like the Government to put much more emphasis on ensuring that their administrative procedures for social security are in order before seeking more powers to require the private sector to provide information. If the Government had concentrated on improving the administration of their existing benefits system, they would have won much more support than the present Bill will guarantee them.
I have a doctor in my constituency who retired and applied for a pension. When it was not paid. he complained and has now been told that his application was never received, although he has had correspondence suggesting that it must have been. That is just one example; I raised that matter in the House before Christmas, and still have not received a satisfactory response. There are many instances in which, we know, people have not yet been paid the money to which they are entitled under the Government's measures on winter fuel payments. The administration of such matters is just not working.
Conservative ideas about having one simple system are the answer to the problem, and I welcome the proposal to set up a single benefits investigation squad. One national body would have responsibility for investigating all forms of welfare fraud, and would be administered by the Benefits Agency. When the Conservative Government take over, I hope that they will put a lot more emphasis on improving the quality of administration. The social security system should protect the innocent and look after those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Too often, those people fall foul of the system

and too much emphasis is put on dealing with those—possibly a large number——who are guilty of fraud, which, given the amount of money taken from the taxpayer, is trivial, compared with the real villains, who are making millions of pounds from systematic housing benefit and social security fraud
The powers in the Bill do not give the impression that they will be well targeted. If there are going to be 900,000 inquiries in a year, that suggests a scatter-gun approach. If we concentrated those extra draconian powers on identifying the top 1,000 fraudsters, we might get somewhere. I fear I that the Government have got their priorities wrong. Considering that they have been advised to get a grip on national insurance numbers, I was surprised to learn of evidence that they do not seem to have done so yet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made the point that there is a long-standing discrepancy between the number of national insurance numbers and the number of people living and working in this country. However, that does not mean that there should not be a system whereby all new national insurance numbers issued coincide with the number of people coming into the workplace. There is plenty of evidence that people can pick up extra national insurance numbers and identities without too many problems.
When the Minister of State makes his winding-up speech, I hope that he will tell us why a national identity card is not the answer. If everybody had such a card, there would be no need for multiple identities and it would be much easier to deal with fraud systematically. The Bill sounds tough and draconian, but I fear that it will deal only with the fringes. It will probably result in some people who are caught up in the lower levels of fraud being brought before the courts and suffering benefit penalties, but I fear that it will not deal with the substantial issue. That is why, although I will not oppose it, I find it rather a disappointing measure.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When one hears the sums involved in social security fraud— £7 billion has been mentioned—and realises how many people may need some form of financial assistance, one could easily get the impression that just about half the households in the country are involved in benefit fraud. It is a massive problem, as everyone acknowledges.
Ever since I can remember, people in my circle would say that if one takes care of the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what he is doing to encourage people at local level who know that fraud is going on to participate in bringing the problem under control? I want him to take note of two anecdotes from my constituency.
A member of the Conservative party who happened to work in the local pharmacy knew of a number of young women who came in regularly to claim prescriptions for which they did not have to pay, because they were on social security benefits. 'That young woman lives in the neighbourhood and brought to my attention the number of households in the neighbourhood that were apparently headed by single individuals. When we checked on the electoral roll at election time, we found that to be true.
There were streets where perhaps three quarters of the households were headed by single women. However, when we went canvassing in the evening, the door was


invariably opened by a young man, who had obviously come home at the end of his day's work. Usually, because it was a hot summer, he was dressed in nothing much above the waist. He was relaxed and obviously in a family situation. When we asked a young man whose work van was outside the house whether he was the householder—knowing, of course, that he was not—or whether he was on the electoral roll, he said, "No, I'm the baby-sitter" or some other such flippant remark. What could we do about that? He had no intention of being on the electoral roll.
The combination of information from that young woman who worked in the local pharmacy and of our canvassing returns gave us a comprehensive view of what was going on in those neighbourhoods. The young woman, who thought that it was her public duty, with a little encouragement, to produce quite a lot of evidence to back up her story, submitted it first through one of those telephone lines, and subsequently in writing to the Department, to be investigated. She got—I have seen the letter—the standard reply thanking her and so on.
All that took place just after the last general election. She is still waiting for something to be done. There she was, a responsible citizen doing what she thought was the right thing to do. Now she is demoralised and thinks that the whole thing is a joke, and that it is not worth while sticking her head above the parapet. After all, if those people knew that she had made such comments to the Department, her life could be made very difficult for her. It is difficult to do what she did and, effectively, shop people. The small savings that we could make would have a profound effect on the morale of the people in such neighbourhoods who are working for a living and are often getting along on not very much money, yet they see those situations being allowed to continue.
I shall give the Minister another example. A nurse came to see me about a situation that she had discovered from a patient who was in hospital for some minor injury. He had confided to her that he had been on holiday in Cyprus and had gone paragliding. The nurse had reason to know that the man was on social security benefits, and she came to me to ask what she should do about the matter. I said that she should report it, which she did. Again, we are waiting for the follow-up. 1 can quote chapter and verse.
As it happened, the very same man came to my surgery on two crutches. He staggered through the door, which his wife opened for him, and sat down and told me a sad story about the curtailment of his benefits. I asked him in all innocence why that was happening. It was clear that he remained on some form of benefit, but he told me that some dreadful nurse—he knew who she was and would get her one day—had reported him to the authorities. He had been on holiday in Cyprus—of course, his son had paid for the holiday, as he could not afford it——and had happened to admit to the nurse that his son had taken him paragliding as a birthday treat. His injuries and health problems were apparently so serious that he had previously been on full benefits, which included one of those wonderful yellow car stickers that allow one to park here, there and everywhere without having to pay fines or even fees.
Hon. Members are told many similar anecdotes in their surgeries and we encourage people to take action on them, but I would love to know from the Minister of State how such matters are followed up. Many people in the same neighbourhoods buy things from catalogue houses, but do not always pay their bills. The private sector employs an

army of people to go round, sort such people out and collect the money. 1 am not sure of their status, but I suppose that they are the equivalent of bailiffs or official debt collectors. I suggest that such a system might be a better way not only of administering benefits, but of checking whether they are abused.
Indeed, the insurance industry uses such a system. If one makes an insurance claim, the company does not merely hand over the money; it sends somebody round to inspect what the claim is about and to double check—this is especially important for injuries claims—that the person in question is not merely faking his or her misfortune. We read in the newspapers occasionally about people who have been photographed when they are engaged in activities that run contrary to the claims that they are making.
In my constituency, a case arose in which a man who was claiming invalidity benefits turned out to be running his wife's carpet cleaning business on the side. His work—he was, incidentally, a policeman—involved moving very large carpet cleaning machines. He was caught because he had made insurance claims, but had been monitored. Somebody had obtained the correct information by double checking.
I realise that an awful lot of people would need to be employed to double check on all benefit claims. However, in a neighbourhood where such activities occur on a grand scale, a little checking and inspection would make a huge impression on the morale of people who are trying to do their best to assist the community at large in preventing benefit fraud. As the Bill proceeds through the House, I hope that the Government will tell us how they will make use of the checking system. It is all very well setting up a new department within the Department and appointing a tsar who will invent more schemes, but I put it to the Minister that he will achieve a great deal more at ground level if he takes more note of what citizens are doing to assist in dealing with benefit fraud.
Of course, benefit fraud is universal. The Conservative Government had to deal with it when we were in power, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a tremendous effort to do something about it. It is not an easy problem, but we could make serious in-roads if only we could persuade the Government to insist that the Department follows up discrepancies when honest citizens make complaints through the normal channels, as they are requested to do. If they do so, the Minister will also have to tell us what will happen to such people when they are not on benefits and find that they must manage, like other people, by finding jobs and going out to work. They currently have no incentive to do that. Of course, there is also the problem of how to pin down people who are living openly with working partners—their partners might also be misrepresenting their position—and claiming falsely. The Minister must tackle those problems if he wants to improve people's morale in relation to benefit fraud.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I want to approach the subject from a slightly different angle. What emerges primarily from my experience in my surgeries and elsewhere is that there are too many disincentives to honesty. I consider that to be as big an issue as that of incentives to dishonesty.
Let us consider the individual who is desperate to get back to work, who may well be over 50, and who is finding it extraordinarily difficult to secure employment. He is on benefit, he has a wife and—perhaps—children to support. He—it is usually a man—is then given the opportunity to try his hand at some employment for two or three weeks. He has been applying for work for months, and has never even been granted an interview; now he has the chance of doing a little work. He then finds that if he declares that he has done the work, he will be denied benefit for several months.
That is bad news. How can it encourage such people to find their way back into work? How can it encourage them to play the system fairly? This is, I think, an enormously important question.
Things are too difficult for people who are trying to set up in business for themselves. The Secretary of State had the goodness to respond with alacrity to information about a case that I encountered, and I am grateful to him for that. I was, however, outraged when a couple who came to my most recent surgery told me what had happened to them. They had been together for 11 years, and had their six-week-old baby with them. The man was trying to set up in business for himself, and was therefore not available for work in the strict sense of the term. He was putting together the equipment that he needed, with assistance from his brother-in-law and other members of his family, and was trying to find premises.
As we all know, the early stages of setting up in business are hugely taxing. The wife was not allowed to go back to work: she was a fitness instructor, her baby had been born only six weeks earlier, and according to the rules of her profession she was not even entitled to take tests to establish whether she was fit to return to work for eight weeks. The Secretary of State now tells me that she was misdirected. The fact remains, however, that the couple were told that they were not entitled to benefit because the man was not available for work. Moreover, one of the kind women at the Benefits Agency told his wife, "You would be a lot better off, dear, if you shed him." What a thing for a woman to say to her partner of 11 years, the father of her firstborn child. I think that such disincentives to truthfulness and honesty lead to much of the fraud about which we are so anxious.
There is another problem, in regard to which I have great sympathy with the Government. In areas such as mine, where unemployment is fairly low, finding appropriate staff is enormously difficult. I realise that the Minister has heard all this so often that he is not the slightest bit interested in what I am saying, but I will continue none the less.
It is often difficult to find staff who are capable of doing the job, given the salaries that social security departments can offer. One consequence of that is that someone who writes three letters in three weeks may find that a different member of staff replies to each one. That leaves the person concerned with no confidence that his case is understood, or that there is any continuity in the arrangements.
Thanks to the reforms of the Child Support Agency, we encounter far fewer CSA-related cases in our constituency surgeries. One case we frequently encounter, however, is that of the spouse who, while claiming to have no income,

is living the life of Riley, while the—usually—abandoned wife is unable to persuade the CSA either to investigate the situation or to do anything about it. Although it is clear that a man who is running two cars and living in a comfortable house on a substantial income is perfectly capable of maintaining his child, the CSA will not investigate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that it is the refusal to follow up manifest cases of blatant dishonesty that demoralises the honest citizen who is trying to make the system work.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: 1 would like to begin by commending the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), because this is possibly the last time they will contribute in the Chamber. They have, as ever, made characteristic speeches, as they have been notable for doing all through their parliamentary lives. They have taken up subjects tonight that are characteristic of all the causes that they have espoused over the years. I thank them very much for their contributions and wish them well.
Having wished two of my colleagues well, it would be churlish of me not to try to make the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), blush, as almost every other hon. Member has done, by thanking him for his contributions over the years. We shall probably have the pleasure of Question Time on Monday, so this may not be his last outing. Indeed, we may well go into Committee on Tuesday—

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Absolutely.

Mrs. Lait: I am glad to hear that we are not dissolving Parliament on Monday, and I look forward to the Standing Committee. Over the past few years, the right hon. Gentleman and I have jousted with each other often enough, and I certainly appreciate his tremendous contribution to the House.
We started this debate—on a Bill that no one has said they will not support—with a half-hour speech by the Secretary of State, which was characterised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) as a speech that the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to deliver on a wet Wednesday night during the election campaign in Edinburgh, Central. Edinburgh, Central is a constituency with which I am familiar, because my husband fought the two 1974 elections there against the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the latter's first campaigns before he did his chicken run to Livingston.
I have some sympathy with the tone of the Secretary of State's speech, but it was not terribly constructive, especially as the Bill has come from the House of Lords amended by my noble Friends Lords Higgins and Astor in a way that has made it a much better Bill. It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State chose to attack our contribution to eliminating fraud, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) not only set the record straight on that, but did so in such a way as to blow apart the Secretary of State's attack on our record on fraud.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, we shall abstain in the vote on the Bill hope that, when we come to write the legislation in the new Parliament, it will be more understandable than this Bill. Lord Brightman sent up the writing of the Bill on Third Reading and said that he hoped that the Government would listen to his requests for easier reading. Anyone who has tried to read the Bill will have had great difficulty in so doing. That apart, some questions remain that we wish to have answered, and many hon. Members have picked up on them.
I shall begin by talking about the code of practice. I was under the impression, as was the Vote Office, that the only code of practice in existence was the draft one produced in the Lords. I was not aware that the amalgamated one referring to local authorities and the Department of Social Security was available in the Library. Furthermore, it is most interesting that the Data Protection Commissioner, who was particularly concerned when she first read the Bill, has written about her many points of disagreement with it. I shall not go through them all—some were dealt with by amendments tabled in the other place—but the Secretary of State's assertion that she has written what appears to be a one-sentence letter saying that all her concerns have been met worries me greatly, because those points were matters of principle. I should be most grateful if he told us, either tonight or before the Bill is considered in Committee, precisely what exchanges took place between the commissioner, Ministers and officials to make her happy with the measure. I accept that she is happy with it; I just want to know why.
Time and again, the right to privacy has been raised. It is of great concern because information—perhaps inadvertently; perhaps not—could be made much more widely available than one would wish. I hope that we receive in Committee an acknowledgement of the worries of organisations such as the British Bankers Association about the information that will be available. Like many other bodies, it wants reassurance not only that the authorised officers will be properly trained, but that there will be a system whereby the list of authorised officers, which will be made available to private organisations such as the banks, will be kept up to date.
We heard some interesting figures from the Secretary of State. In the other place, Baroness Hollis said that she expected 500 DSS staff and 1,000 local authority staff to be authorised officers. The Secretary of State said that the figure for the DSS or the Benefits Agency is going down to 300, and one would like to assume that the figure for local authorities will be only 600. An enormous number of people will be involved; and allowing for even a normal turnover, it will be difficult to keep the list up to date. It is possible that the private organisations—

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Lait: I am very sorry. I would dearly love to give my hon. Friend the opportunity to intervene, but I am trying to get through my speech quite quickly.
How will the list of authorised officers be kept up to date, and how will the private bodies be notified of changes?
There is also concern about management responsibility for authorised officers. My noble Friend Lord Astor said that, as far as he is concerned, an executive officer is

equivalent to a second lieutenant. Having been in the civil service, I understand exactly what he means. When private sector organisations are dealing with civil servants, they must know that they are working with people who have sufficient management authority to deal properly with the information.
A number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), referred to the cost of the Bill to the private sector. The mere fact that there is a difference of about £5 million between the estimates in the regulatory impact assessment allows people to ask serious questions.
We hope to make further improvements in Committee and I have raised a number of issues about which we are concerned. We want the Bill to be passed, as it represents a further step towards tightening up the defences against fraud and eliminating fraud from the system.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best in the time available to answer as many questions as possible. I am deeply humbled by many hon. Members' comments. I can guarantee that the speech will not be my last from the Dispatch Box, although perhaps it could be. [Interruption.] If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I shall move the programme motion, the terms of which are a little more restricted.
I am deeply grateful for hon. Members' remarks, which I reciprocate to others who will not return after the next election. Every day in the House in the past 27 years has been like the first, but all good things come to an end. I hate the word "retirement", and I am not going to prune roses, but I have no plans, though no one believes me.
Some unfortunate phrases have been used about Department staff, although I appreciate that they were not intended maliciously. However, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) mentioned the seniority and probity of staff who issue national insurance numbers; investigating officers were also mentioned. In the past few years, the number of people who are qualified and eligible to issue national insurance numbers has decreased from approximately 1,500 to about 500. The officers who will be authorised under the Bill are the same officers who, day in, day out, visit businesses, contact companies, and ask managers about their employees. In the past 20 months since I have been at the Department, I have not received a single complaint from private sector companies about the way in which they were approached by executive officers.
The Bill will authorise officers by name. We will begin with 175 officers, although I ask not to be tied down to a specific figure. We do not envisage more than 300 such officers. They will be qualified under the professionalism in security—PINS—training programme. When visiting benefits agencies and listening to our fraud staff, I have picked up the point that nowadays Inland Revenue and national health service trust advertisements for investigatory officers state: "PINS training preferred". They prefer the Department of Social Security system. However, the ultimate accolade is that the private sector is now advertising for PINS trained staff. Last summer, a big bank, which was formerly a building society, stated in its advertisement for fraud and investigation audit officers for its headquarters that PINS training was preferred. It was basically trawling for former DSS employees.
Those officers will be the authorised officers under the Bill. If they are good enough to be recruited by the private sector and currently good enough to make inquiries and undertake normal investigations of the private sector, they are good enough to carry out the duties for which the Bill provides.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that the Bill was thoroughly debated in another place. I would never say that the other place conducted line-by-line scrutiny in the same way as the House of Commons, but, in conventional terms, the Bill was given a good going-over and we made several modifications to it there.
We never intended any individual fishing expeditions to be conducted under the Bill. A paragraph of a subsection included a sentence that contained the words, "likely" or "connected to". We used the example of window cleaners. That was a little unfortunate for window cleaners, but we could have used other examples. We could have referred to families of known fraudsters as a discrete group. We took out the original reference because it implied an element of fishing—we do not intend any fishing for named individuals to occur. That is clear in the Bill. I am referring not to the code of practice, but to the Bill. No inquiries can even be made
unless it appears to that officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person to whom it relates is … a person who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence; or … a person who … is a member of the family of a person falling within paragraph (a) above.
That family member, such as a spouse, is the only person who could affect a housing benefit claim. It could not be a brother, sister or grandparent who lived there but had nothing to do with the benefit claim. They would not be caught under the legislation. There is no intention to go on any fishing expeditions. The only area in which that statement would be qualified is in the bulk transfer of information from the utility companies. However, we will not go fishing when it comes to individuals.
We will seek the bulk transfer of information from the utility companies—gas, electricity and water—only when specific properties have abnormally high or low usage. They will not give us the names of any individuals. It will be up to us in the Department of Social Security to data-match that information against our benefit claimants. That is the purpose of the bulk transfer of information—it will not be used for tracing individuals. People must have good grounds for requesting it.
We will not simply trawl the banks. First, officers must believe that something is wrong on the application form or that someone has lied. Alternatively, there could be an allegation. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) shopped a whole street—probably because she is not standing for re-election. That case, which was a clear case of fraud, as the hon. Lady said, has come to my attention since I came to the Department in July 1999. However, we can never report back to the hon. Lady's constituent who sent us specific names and addresses, all of which we examined. We are never in a position to report back to a third party—it is simply not possible. We cannot even report back to the Member concerned.
People sometimes believe that the problem is being ignored. I have looked at these cases; I have gone around the country and discussed them. I can assure the House

that, to the best of my knowledge, we check the allegations and set up inquiries. We also do more risk analysis than in the past so that we do not waste resources in checking areas where we think that the allegation cannot be justified. We know that there is a high risk with some groups of benefit claimants, and risk analysis enables us to make the best use of our resources.
We will not trawl the banks. If we think that someone is lying to us when he says that he has no bank account, no money and no capital, we will not send out a billet-doux to all the banks asking whether they have any information on that person. That is not our intention. We have never said that we would do that, and we have made it quite clear that we will not. We will not even approach the banks to start with.
If we suspect that someone has an undisclosed bank account, we may first approach a credit reference agency, which we should be able to do electronically. That will tell us who has searched that person's credit files recently as well as giving information on existing credit agreements and credit cards. We would know, because searchers leave footprints on the computers. I have seen it myself when visiting banks and insurance companies. We may see that a bank has searched the file and we may then approach the bunk to see whether the person had an account at the bank. In other words, we need a reason to approach a specific bank. If not, we can approach a lender or a credit card company to find out what they know about the person. They might have the details of the person's bank account that he had provided when applying for the credit facility, or they may know how he makes repayments. If those avenues are not fruitful, we might approach a utility company to find out how the person pays his bills, because it might be by direct debit. If all those avenues fail to lead to details of a bank account, we will accept that and rely on other evidence. That is an example of how we might go through the system. We will not take a scattergun approach to the banking system.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned NINOs—national insurance numbers. I think that the issue is worth a debate; it is worth more publication. I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), for taking a more responsive, moderate view as he waded through his history of successes at the Department of Social Security as evidence to support Ministers, and his belief that we manage the NINO numbering system.
That system is not static. It is not simply a list of numbers on a computer. It is an actively managed system. Staff manage the numbers going on to the system, the activity associated with them and those coming off.
Everyone is appalled by the figures, but they are due to the nature of the population. We were asked about the 4 million numbers added since 1997. We estimate that 2.8 million are children, 800,000 are foreign nationals and about 120,000 are asylum seekers, which adds up to about 3.7 million. We do not know about British nationals who have come back from abroad.
There is a problem. At the moment, we pay pensions to 1 million pensioners abroad. That is not counting people who are working abroad. There are millions of people who have been in this country and left. Millions of ordinary United Kingdom residents have gone abroad. There may be millions more who have come here to do three weeks of fruit picking in Scotland or in parts of East


Anglia where the gangmasters work. They collect a NINO and then they never return to this county, but the NINO remains on the system.
About 12.5 million people on the NINO system are deceased, but we need to keep the records. It is true that we cleanse the system. I do not have the figures to hand, although they are in my folder somewhere, but I think that last year we cleansed more NINO numbers from the system than were cleared in the last 10 years of the previous Administration. We are actively searching and managing the NINO system. It is not always the easiest matter to explain.
Children are on the system these days, for obvious reasons. The child's national insurance number is automatically generated when he or she is 16 because it was locked in when the first claim for child benefit was made. It is an important part of the process.
There are other aspects of NINO management. For the simple reason that children are being born but dead people are not taken off the system, there will be an inexorable increase in the numbers. Everyone will realise what will happen in another 20 years, given that we have reached 80—odd million numbers since 1948. There are huge numbers on the system, so we have to flag them. Suspect numbers—those where we think that there is an abuse—are flagged. If they are used, an inquiry is automatically triggered.
The credit industry fraud avoidance system has been mentioned. I regret that we are not, and cannot be, members of CIFAS, as that would help with reciprocity in the transfer of information. I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the Bill is part of the price that the country must pay for not having an identity card system. We are virtually unique in western Europe in not having such a system. Other countries do not need this sort of legislation.
In so far as we can be, we are satisfied that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. We have the best legal advice and the best legal brains in Whitehall. They do not always get it right, but in this case we have put them through the mill since lost summer. I must tell the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that we have no outstanding inquiries from the Information Commissioner—formerly the Data Protection Commissioner. To that extent, I hope that we can satisfy hon. Members. The Bill will cause a degree of intrusion, but only for people we think have lied to us about a benefit claim.
Finally, I want to reassure the House that there will have to be good, reasonable and legally tested grounds for making claims about people's bank accounts. There will be no fishing expeditions. All the officers will be trained and qualified under the professionalism in security training system. They will be ordinary executive officers, who are dealing with industry day in and day out in a highly professional manner. I think that we will have 13 or 14 sites throughout the country from which the inquiries will be made. It will not be a case of all the fraud investigators being in the Benefits Agency; they will be a select and elite corps. I think that we can trust in them. They will be properly trained to do an effective job.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]:

I have not moved a programme motion before, so I was briefed to the gunwales; we have a brilliant civil service—it is excellent. I was sent several speeches made on previous motions and I wrote back with a little billet-doux pointing out that, by the way, I am a Member of Parliament and I attend the House even when it is not DSS time. I have listened to at least five programme motion debates—the full 45 minutes—although, looking around the Chamber, it seems that the usual suspects are not present. However, I know almost all the points that they would make.

I take the matter seriously. I shall not tell the House that we shall consider no amendments—I shall not say that. I shall not tell the House that we want to rush the measure through. Although the Bill has been debated in the other place, I thought that the original dates proposed for its proceedings here were a bit unreasonable, so—considering the dates on which Easter falls—I took the view that Maundy Thursday—[Interruption.] Maundy Thursday is on 12 April, so presumably the House is sitting; if it is not we shall make arrangements for it to do so. Maundy Thursday counts as a non-qualifying day in the election timetable—as we all know. It is one of those non-days, but it could still be a sitting day in this place.

So, on the reasonable assumption that we shall begin the Committee stage next Tuesday at 10.30 am—I am looking forward to that—we can probably knock the Bill off in eight sittings. We shall be able to deal with many


of the detailed points made today; I am not denigrating them by suggesting that they were Committee points. We can hold useful debates during the period allocated.

Given the scale of the Bill, the number of sittings is justified. Many hon. Members say that it is a small Bill; some have said that we are taking draconian powers. We certainly accept that the Bill has been given a fair wind. On behalf of my colleagues and those people who have worked on the measure, I am extremely grateful for the general good will in response to it. We have to make it work. That is true. It is an extra weapon in the armoury for the fight against social security fraud. It certainly deserves full scrutiny by the House—this is where I dig myself in—if, of course, the House allows that. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mrs. Lait: Like the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I, too, have listened to many programme motion debates. It is unfortunate for him that this will be his first and last—or perhaps penultimate—such appearance.
The Opposition are thoroughly against the whole system of programme motions. In many cases, the inability of the House to consider legislation thoroughly because of this new system will create a constitutional problem that will be extremely difficult to deal with; that will come home to roost and the country will be the poorer for it.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is broadly welcomed on both sides of the House, but it might not go far enough; we want to consider many issues, as was clear from many of the Second Reading speeches. However, the motion highlights the absurdity inherent in the new system.
Like me, the Minister sat through the proceedings on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), sat through the proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 as well as the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act; the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) sat through the proceedings on both of those Acts; and although the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) will, unfortunately, not be joining us this time, he was also in attendance during the proceedings on those Acts and played a useful role. The cast of characters for the Bill's Standing Committee will, I suspect, be similar to that for all those Acts—

Mr. Willetts: The old lags.

Mrs. Lait: Indeed. I should have thought that the old lags would realise that we have always worked well together in deciding the end dates for Committees and in ensuring that we stick to our agreements. The Minister will remember the help that we gave when there was a bit of an upset during the passage of the Bill that became the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, so I find it sad and absurd that we have to have a programme motion on this Bill.
The motion provides for four days in Committee—eight sittings. We shall either fill those sittings without difficulty or not sit at all. The apparent generosity of the

motion leads me to three different conclusions about what the Government have decided. They may be planning to table a lot of Government amendments, which will take a long time to debate. They may intend to encourage their Back Benchers to contribute in a way that we have not seen in the past. Or, may I suggest a cynical calculation on the election date and that we shall not even go into Committee? That, I am afraid, is the only conclusion that I can draw from the mere fact that a programme motion has to be tabled on a Bill of this nature, which is largely uncontroversial, when we have in the past always agreed happily to end dates and other issues regarding the management of a Bill.
We will, as we promised, table amendments to satisfy ourselves that these issues have been thought through. The Minister says that the Information Commissioner has no concerns. I accept that the commissioner has no concerns, but I should like to Know why she now has none, when originally she had many.
The Opposition find it absurd and sad that a Bill like this, which was amended satisfactorily in the House of Lords, should be subjected to a programme motion, as is the usual draconian behaviour of the Government. It is completely unacceptable.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think that there is now a grave danger that it would take longer to see the Bill through because there is a guillotine; and has she noticed that, ever since the Government tried to modernise, we have gone home later in the evening than we used to before modernisation? Does not that show that the Government are totally incompetent even at reforming the House of Commons?

Mrs. Lait: What else could I do but agree with my right hon. Friend? I do not think that any Bill in whose scrutiny I take part lasts any longer then it needs to, because I do not believe in extending debate any longer than necessary, but 1 think it is very sad that when we have established a good working relationship, this draconian measure should be imposed on us. In the long run, that Government will come to recognise as much as we do the damage that they have done to the constitution.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) seems to be assuming that the House will be dissolved shortly. Of course, I do not make any such assumption. It could be not 12 days but 12 months before there is a Dissolution, so I shall not make the assumption apparently made by the hon. Lady and other Member including my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), that we have heard the swan song of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I hope that we have not. If we have, though, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution that he has made to the House in many capacities.
I had the pleasure of shadowing the right hon. Gentleman when he was with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I have the greatest respect for his parliamentary talents. I thought that he introduced the programme motion with consummate modesty and characteristic glee because it looked as though it would


not be necessary, so there may be something in the timetable to which the hon. Member for Beckenham referred.
I will not make the assumption that this programme motion is purely academic. Its detail does not present a great problem for us, whether or not the timetable is as supposed. However, on the principle of the way in which these programme motions are still coming before the House, I share the views of many other Members present that these motions are total nonsense, even when they are acceptable in their detail.
I shall let the House into a secret. Tomorrow afternoon I shall attend the meeting of the Committee of Selection, at which we shall decide which Members of the House are to sit on this Committee. Some would think that other people should take that decision, but it will be taken by that Committee.
I can tell the House that more hon. Members will be appointed to the Standing Committee than have attended most of the debate on Second Reading, because I was here and saw it. In the middle of that debate, nine Members were present, and because I was one of them and I will certainly not appoint myself to the Committee, only eight could be eligible to serve on it. It goes without saying that the hon. Members who spoke this afternoon were not necessarily those who will take part in the Committee.
It also goes without saying that the hon. Members who must surely take ownership of the way in which the Committee undertakes its business and those who will decide how best to consider the detail, to which many references were made in the debate on Second Reading, are the members of that Committee. Therefore, for the programme motion to be tabled even before those Members have been appointed to the Committee is obviously absurd.
I can also tell the House, without revealing any great secret between the usual channels or breaking Select Committee confidences, that the Modernisation Committee will consider programme motions tomorrow. I think that that is probably widely known. Given the speech made by the hon. Member for Beckenham from the Conservative Front Bench, I hope that her colleagues on that Committee will support sensible moves to get the proposal back on track.
I hope that the hon. Lady, who said that the motion was draconian, will recall that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who I regret is not in his usual place, made the original suggestion that such programme motions should be introduced. He is the godfather of programme motions. The fact that the godchild has gone somewhat astray in recent months should not blind those on the Conservative Front Bench to the fact that, in the original idea, there was a very good principle at stake. It was simply that the Government of the day. assuming that they could command a majority in Me House, had a right to expect Committees to deal with legislation in good time and to set the end date.

Mr. James Gray: Says who?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the previous Parliament, so he has no experience of Conservative Governments, but I can assure him that they made exactly the same assumption. They assumed that, if they had a majority in the House, they had a right to

expect that their Bills would reach the statute book. That is parliamentary democracy. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the management of the individual issues of importance are properly discussed with the Opposition parties.
The Opposition parties have a perfect right to decide what are the principal concerns that they believe should be addressed in the debate and by Division. It is also true that Back Benchers on both sides have a right to expect that that scrutiny will take place in a managed and sensible way. That was the original principle of programme motions, as suggested by the right hon. Member for East Devon in his previous capacity of Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that we shall make some progress. We could be here for another 12 months. I do not say that that is likely, but it is possible, and we certainly cannot continue with programme motions in their current form.
The Minister, in winding up the debate on Second Reading and in moving the programme motion, said that there is widespread support in the House, throughout all parties, for the objectives in the Bill, but he also said, very fairly, that much of its detail will require careful consideration to get right. The problem that we face is clearly gigantic. In that context and, I hope, with the support of the House, this programme motion may not be objectionable, but I still believe that it is completely ludicrous in principle that we should decide how a Committee should conduct its business even before it is appointed. I hope very much that, before many days are out, we shall improve the procedure.

Mr. David Wilshire: I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say before deciding whether to speak in the debate, but something that he said made it important for me to do so. If I heard him correctly, he said that eight sittings ought to be enough "to knock off' the Bill. The assumption that we are here only to knock things off for the Minister's convenience and that what we might think, say or do really does not matter shows almost breathtaking arrogance and a contempt for democracy. With that slip of the tongue, the right hon. Gentleman showed that, although this is the first time that he has introduced a programme motion, he instinctively understands the nature of the beast. When he reflects in the morning on the attitude that he has taken, I hope that he will feel ashamed of himself.
When the Minister said that the civil servants had briefed him, he explained to the House that he did not need a briefing because he was a Member of Parliament. If he were a real parliamentarian who believed in the House and all that it stands for, and if he were a democrat who believed in the democracy that this country enjoys, he would have kept out of this debate on the programme motion. He should not be proud of the fact that it is the first time that he has introduced such a motion; had he been a real parliamentarian, he would have retired from the House never having moved one. He would have said to himself, "This is an affront to Parliament and the way in which we run our democracy."
The right hon. Gentleman faces a problem even though he boasted to us that he had heard it all before. He said that he had been told what to expect. Unfortunately, however good his civil servants are, they did not brief him


about what I might say. They will not have found a speech from me on a programme motion. There is a always a surprise in store—even at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary career.
The Minister may have thought that he would get off lightly tonight. He looked around and said something about the usual suspects. It should not be a case of the usual suspects; all 659 Members of the House should be affronted by programme motions. Everyone who believes in democracy should be one of the usual suspects.

Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend surprised that Ministers show such contempt for the House by introducing programme motions, given that they are led by a Prime Minister who hardly ever votes in the House and who has the worst voting record by a long way of any Prime Minister that any of us can remember? Does not such complete contempt for the parliamentary and democratic process come from the top?

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that the Minister has read the briefings that he has been given and he will have seen that many Members consider the Prime Minister's treatment of us and of parliamentary democracy to be a disgrace. The Minister will have read that, and I hope that he has taken that point to heart. I suspect that,if he were being frank, he would say that he agreed, because in many respects he is a genuine parliamentarian who believes in this place—or, at least, he did until he took the Queen's shilling and came here to spout out such undemocratic nonsense.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the programme motion? Will he confine his remarks to that?

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of introduction, I was responding to the Minister's comments. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the motion or about other things, but I accept what you say and I shall move on.
The Minister said that, as far as he could see, the Committee might want to sit on Maundy Thursday. I do not think that it will, but it is possible that the Prime Minister might put the country and not his party interest first and deal with the things that matter. Even if he did that, we would probably still not be here on Maundy Thursday, given the way in which the House has organised its business in the past. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could tell us what he proposes to do replace the sitting that could take place on 12 April—or does he expect members of the Committee to attend even though the House is in recess? We should know.
I accept that, in some respects, in providing eight sittings for a Bill such as this, the motion is not as mean and nasty as some previous programme motions have been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, one has to ask why. If the Bill can be knocked off quickly because it has been considered in the other place and is relatively non-controversial, why do we need eight sittings?
Why do we need a programme motion? What has happened to the principle that if one wants to be generous and reasonable, in the first instance one discusses the

matter through the usual channels to see whether common sense will prevail? As I understand it, common sense would have prevailed in this case and there would have been no need for a programme motion. However, we have now got to the stage where the Government could not care less whether there is any common sense to be had from Conservative Members. They just go in with their boots on without even bothering to find out whether there could be agreement. That tells us a great deal about their approach to the House.
We must ask ourselves why, if the Bill is not controversial, we have been given eight sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said that it did not matter, and the Government could have given us 800 sittings because after next week we will not be here to worry about it. That is probably the explanation, but I guess that the Minister knows no more than we do because the Prime Minister runs these matters in a dictatorial fashion and probably will not consult him. Nevertheless, it is possible that we will be here after next week—a Government who cared about the nation might see their term through.
Let us assume for the moment that we will be here after next week. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is absolutely right and the Government have something up their sleeves. If we cannot work out why eight sittings are necessary, perhaps the Government are concealing something from us and at the very last minute they will table a large number of amendments. When I was listening to my hon. Friend's explanation, it crossed my mind that several Labour Back Benchers may have worked out which of their Front—Bench colleagues will shortly lose their sears and want to use the Committee to make a bid for an Opposition spokesman's job. That might explain why the Minister of State moved the programme motion—it is a chance for him to strut the stage and to point out that, in opposition, he could do a useful job.
Another possibility that occurred to me is that by setting a limit, even a generous one of eight sittings, the Government are saying that they will look only for as much fraud as they can fit into a convenient time before they treat Parliament as a rubber stamp. It does not matter how many good suggestions are made, how many reasonable amendments are tabled or how many people think up new ways of bringing even more fraudsters to book if those factors cannot be tackled in the number of sittings suggested by the Minister. They could not care less about fraud if it does not fit.
The Minister explained why having eight sittings was a particularly good idea, but he did not even mention Report. If I understand the Order Paper correctly, it suggests that the Report stage will be brought to an end at 9 o'clock on the day on which it starts. Presumably, if we do not have the general election that the Labour party seems to want for its own selfish ends—[Laughter.] The laughter tells us a great deal. Labour Members will be laughing on the other side of their face after they have called an election—I will tell you that for free, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If we get to the Report stage, it is likely to be in mid-April, although it is difficult to say because we have not been given a date We will have a maximum of five hours for it, but if my guess about the date is correct, the shambolic way in which the Government have failed to tackle foot and mouth disease means that we will have


another interminable statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or perhaps the Prime Minister will grace us with his presence because, by then, he will have lost confidence in all his Ministers and will have to do everything himself.
Let us assume that we have another statement on the day on which the Report stage is taken. I noticed this afternoon that we were still wending our weary way through statements after 5 o'clock. That means that it does not matter how many amendments or new clauses are tabled on Report, because by the time the Minister has opened the debate and waffled on for ages, about an hour will have gone by, which will leave Back Benchers about an hour in which to say something before the winding-up speeches. That would be an undemocratic Report stage. It is pointless for hon. Members to give any thought to it if it can run for just three hours and Front-Bench spokesmen want to take time over it.
This is the Minister's first outing in a programme motion debate and he should be ashamed. It is a pity that he has not been given the opportunity to leave the House without getting his hands mucky in an undemocratic and unreasonable process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, the right hon. Gentleman could have gone home earlier had it not been for his Government colleagues.
Programme motions are part of the great modernisation process to allow hon. Members to go home earlier, because if they stayed too long they might have to take this place seriously. The Government have bungled that process. Not only does the Minister have to come here and dirty his hands, but he has to suffer the Government's incompetence. Instead of modernising, they make matters worse. I am sorry for the Minister, who could have left Parliament at the election without joining in an undemocratic procedure and adding his four pennyworth to this incompetent Government, whom we shall shortly remove.

Mr. Lilley: Like the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), this is my maiden speech in a programme motion debate. I am puzzled about why a motion has been tabled to end the Committee stage by Maundy Thursday. If the Prime Minister intends to have an election, there is no reason to table such an insulting idea. He could at least pretend that that is not the case by giving us ample time to consider the Bill. However, instead of letting us have holy week off and completing our deliberations after Easter, he has decided to insult us. Perhaps he is not going ahead with the election but has still decided that the Committee must finish by Maundy Thursday without saying why.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the Government's difficulty compounded by the fact that yesterday's timetable motion on the Adoption and Children Bill gave an exit date of 12 June?

Mr. Lilley: Indeed. The Government compound absurdity with absurdity. Why must the Committee conclude by Maundy Thursday? Will that give us time to get the answers to the unanswered questions that my hon. Friends and I raised in detail? In an otherwise admirable summing up, the Minister, in what is possibly his swansong

in a Second Reading debate, did not answer my question about whether a study has been conducted of the savings that were made from the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which I introduced. That was the precursor to this Bill and gave data-matching powers for data within government. Only when we have that information can we decide whether the detailed measures in the Bill are likely to bring about similar savings.
The Bill might not be worth the candle and we might have to re-tailor the provisions to make the savings that the Government have suggested. They assume that there will be 800,000 inquiries. It is estimated that each will cost about £9 and will result in benefit savings of an average of £225. The Committee will want those figures explained, and the Government need time in which to work that out.

Mr. Redwood: Given my right hon. Friend's great experience of trying to combat social security fraud, does he think it likely that many amendments will be needed to the Bill from the Government, to try to make the measure work practically in all the detail that he is describing? Until we know how many amendments will be tabled, is it feasible to know how long it might take to discuss them?

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that undermines the concept of programme motions. Unless and until we know the sort of changes that will be needed in the course of considering a Bill, we cannot allocate time.
We know that the Bill required changes even in the other place, a less contentious place than this place. It was changed quite significantly as it passed through the House of Lords, and it is likely to be changed even more in Committee—if we are given time to make changes, and if we are given time for the Government to answer the questions that we raise, which they have not answered today.
I raised the crucial issue of why fraud is increasing under the Government, despite their claim, in opening the debate, that it is falling. Why did they not subsequently apologise for misleading the House? We know that they try to justify the statement by saying that if errors are allowed as well as fraud, there is a slight fall in fraud. That is not a significant fall, although they were telling us that it was. They have not explained why they made that claim, even though it was not valid.
In Committee, we shall want to consider whether the Bill's provisions will bear down on fraud or on what the Government call errors. That might take some time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: From the right hon. Gentleman's experience and from his knowledge of the Bill, will there be time to consider not only fraudulent claims by those seeking benefit, but the actions of those within the Department, who are mostly honest people? I am thinking of one of my constituents who was recently convicted and fined for £250,000-worth of fraud from the inside?

Mr. Lilley: I do not think that we shall have time to consider that activity or to amend the Bill to cover it. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that that is serious


and important fraud—and the numbers to which he refers suggest that it is—we should be able to amend the Bill to take account of it.
I was raising the distinction that the Government draw between fraud and error. They say that if errors are thrown in, they are succeeding in their task. I have not noticed that.

Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should be able to reach consideration of clause 16 in Committee? It might then be possible to introduce a presumption of fraud where someone forgets to declare £200,000 of income?

Mr. Lilley: I can guess what my hon. Friend is referring to. Usually, the sort of error that we are discussing does not include forgetting £200,000 of one's income. The average benefit claimant does not forget that, but I gather that it is quite normal on the Government Benches to forget that sort of amount. We should know whether that will be classified as error or fraud, and we will want to consider that at length.
When on that subject, we shall want to consider whether to amend the Bill to give power to the Government or social security officers to obtain information that has been uncovered by DTI inquiries. If they can obtain information from banks and credit card owners, why cannot they get information about people who have been examined in the course of DTI inquiries, especially if there is provision, as there is on the statute book—despite what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says—for releasing such information to a designated body that is fulfilling a public function?
It would be possible to take such matters into account in Committee if only there were time. I suspect that the Government want to rush through consideration in Committee because they do not want that sort of embarrassing discussion shortly before a general election. That is why they are trying to curtail discussion by means of a draconian programme motion. They want consideration to be completed by Maundy Thursday. They do not want to allow us the sort of discussion that we shall need to give the Bill the inquisition that it deserves.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to make a few remarks on the programme motion. Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I should like to ask why there is a need for the motion at all? Did the Government try to come to an informal agreement through the usual channels?
We shall spend three quarters of an hour debating the motion, plus the vote, making one hour. The Programming Sub-Committee will perhaps take an hour or two; there will be another half-hour debate on the programme in Committee and a vote, making three quarters of an hour. That may take the time up to three and three quarter hours. This motion makes provision for a programme motion to be introduced on Report and Third Reading, making another three quarters of an hour, together with a vote, bringing the total to an hour. So a total of four and three quarter hours could be spent on

debating the timetable for the Bill to get through the House and the other place, which is the equivalent of a half-day debate in the House.
Before introducing the programme motion in the House, it would have been much more sensible of the Government to try to see whether a voluntary agreement could be reached. Had the Government introduced sensible proposals, I am certain that a voluntary programme could have been entered into; more than four hours could have been usefully devoted to debating the Bill at greater length or debate could have been foreshortened. I am not sure why, under paragraph 3 of the motion, the Government want to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by Maundy Thursday. Unless a general election on 3 May is a racing certainty, it seems that the Government will run out of legislation to introduce. What on earth will we do if the election is delayed until October? Will there be another Queen's Speech? What will happen? We will be scratching around for motions to debate in the House.
The Government are wasting our time because it is practically a racing certainty that we will have an election. However, assuming that we do not, we must deal with the Bill's timetable. I have dealt with one or two timetables before, and there are a couple of things that could be usefully incorporated in future. Why, for example, does the final sitting of the Committee have to be brought to a conclusion at 9 o'clock on a Tuesday or 6 o'clock on a Thursday? I have some Committee experience and, very often, the Committee suddenly gets into a panic towards the end of its consideration of the Bill and an awful lot is discussed on the last day. Given my experience of serving on Committees with timetables, it would make eminent good sense—if one has to have a timetable—to conclude proceedings at midnight. That is not unreasonable.
The worst thing in the timetable motion is paragraph 7, which makes provision for a timetable for messages from the Lords, and states:
the question … shall be put forthwith.
If ever there was an abrogation of the democratic tradition of debate in the House, that is it. Whatever amendments the Lords make to the Bill, whatever messages they send to us, we shall have no time whatever to debate them. That is totally undemocratic.

Mr. Redwood: Does that not imply that the reform and modernisation of the other place has backfired on the Government, like the rest of their modernisation? Does it not imply that, in advance, the Government are not prepared to trust their Lordships to come up with decent amendments and wish to vote them down forthwith, whatever they say? Does that not show that the Labour peers who were put in to pack the other place cannot even be bothered to turn up to do the job properly?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: As usual, my right hon. Friend's logic is impeccable. He is right: the Government are so incompetent that they cannot organise the other place properly to get the answer that they want. Not satisfied with having a proper democratic debate in the other place, they are determined to use undemocratic means to reverse anything from the other place that they do not like. If that is democracy, the Government will go down in history as one of the most undemocratic ever seen in this country.

Mr. Hogg: The proposal is not only discourteous to the other place, but to the House, as it excludes the possibility of discussing messages from the other place. The House has a right to discuss those messages .

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend makes my point for me. Of course the House, which is the bastion of democracy and the oldest democracy in the world, is being denied by this undemocratic Government the chance to debate any changes arising from the other place that the Government do not like. The way in which the Government are behaving is unbelievable. Some time, the British people will wake up and realise that the rights that they have had for centuries, vested in the Members of Parliament whom they send as their representatives in Parliament, have been taken away as a result of those very representatives not looking after their rights.
Once the people cotton on to that, as they undoubtedly will, they will say that the representatives who did not look after their rights should be kicked out and replaced by others who can.

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the Minister.

Mr. Rooker: Has the hon. gentleman finished speaking?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I thought that the Minister wanted to intervene. He looks more and more annoyed at what I am saying. That means that I must be hitting the target 100 per cent. true—the bull's eye. He knows that what I am saying is absolutely correct.
I see that time is getting on. In view of what has been said tonight, it is right that the Minister should have a chance to reply. I have a great deal of respect for him personally. Whatever he has done at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in his present job, he has done with integrity. I hope that he will reply, as he knows that the democratic rights of Parliament are being taken away by the timetable motion that he is proposing.

Mr. Rooker: I do not think that Parliament's rights are being taken away. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the other place, the Government have 29 per cent. of the votes. The Bill has been through the other place, and there was not a single Division during its passage. The argument that there could be issues of substance coming back from the other place beggars belief.
I did not have a chance to reply to one of the issues raised by the former Secretary of state, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He obviously feels upset about the matter, but the Library brief is wrong. The baseline that we use is September 1998. The Library has taken 1999, so the figures used are not comparable. I have put that on the record, as it answers one of the questions that was raised. I shall answer the rest in Committee in due course.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he agree that if the Government put eight Committee sittings aside for, say,

a 13-clause Bill, they consider eight sittings enough? If new clauses are introduced, should not more sittings be allowed?

Mr. Rooker: That is always an argument. However, it would be arrogant of me to present a programme motion to the House and say that the Government have no plans for any amendments, or that the Government have huge plans for amendments. That would be wrong. We have just passed the Second Reading. We are planning a Committee stage and if that starts on Tuesday, the Government amendments would obviously be published before that. In the normal course of events—

Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. The Bill could be knocked off in eight sittings of mature, adult consideration of the issues in it, as we have debated them today, if that consideration is not sullied by time-wasting speeches such as we have heard.

Question put: —

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 269, Noes 149.

Division No. 166]
[10.43 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bames, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Iain


Battle, John
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer. John (Homchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burden, Richard



Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Denham, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Donohoe, Brian H


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Dowd, Jim


Caton, Martin
Drew, David


Cawsey, Ian
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)






Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Flint, Caroline



Flynn, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
Mclsaac, Shona


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meale, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Merron, Gillian


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hanson, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hendrick, Mark
Mountford, Kali


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Perham, Ms Linda


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pollard, Kerry


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pond, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W  Hessle)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Joyce, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Alan (Feltham  Heston)
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford  Isleworfh)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Salmond, Alex


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Salter, Martin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Shipley, Ms Debra


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Linton, Martin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Snape, Peter





Soley, Clive
Truswell, Paul


Spellar, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Steinberg, Gerry
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stringer, Graham



Stuart Ms Gisela
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Todd, Mark
Mr. Don Touhig and


Trickett, Jon
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gray, James


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Baldry, Tony
Hammond, Philip


Beggs, Roy
Harvey, Nick


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blackman, Liz
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brady, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Key, Robert


Burnett, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Butterfill, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Chidgey, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Collins, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cotter, Brian
Loughton, Tim


Cran, James
Luff, Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Hatemprice)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Madel, Sir David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maginnis, Ken


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Flight, Howard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paterson, Owen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric






Prior, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ty)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Ruffley, David
Wallace, Rt Hon James


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Sanders, Adrian
Waterson Nigel


Sayeed, Jonathan
Webb, Steve


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Whittingdale, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willis, Phil


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Stunell, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Taylor, Ian (Esher  Walton)
and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th April 2001.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th April 2001.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a), (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 to 11.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 28 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 13 and 14.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Question agreed to.

SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

That the draft General Commissioners of Income Tax (Costs) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

That the draft Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

PARTNERSHIPS

That the Limited Liability Partnerships (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 969) dated 14th March 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 78), on the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (HC 335), which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—

`( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.

( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—,[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words: —

`(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object

PETITION

Religious Broadcasting Licences

11 pm

Mr. John Burnett: This petition is from a number of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon and others. There are, I believe, some 1,365 signatories to it. The petition requests that provision be made to remove discrimination against religious bodies in obtaining properly regulated broadcasting licences.
The prayer in the petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.

To lie upon the table.

Walsgrave Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: On the occasion of this Adjournment debate, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the lack of confidence in the chief executive of Walsgrave hospital, which serves the whole of Coventry, including, of course, my own constituency.
A most unhappy situation, lasting some 19 months, led to my initiating the debate. The staff unions are opposing the consultants and the chief executive himself thinks that the current unrest could lead to problems arising over the new private finance initiative hospital for Coventry. I am led to believe from articles in today's edition of the Coventry Evening Telegraph that the surgeons are split on the matter.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who will reply to the debate, that one senior surgeon even thinks that there could be political manoeuvrings against the professional class of surgeons by her Department, but I am anxious to assure her that I do not share that view; nor is it widely shared by the surgeons at Walsgrave.
It is not my intention to apportion any blame for the unhappy situation with which we in Coventry are confronted. I believe that the management has a lot to answer for and I also believe that management, with one simple step that I shall deal with shortly, could put an end to this great unhappiness and great lack of certainty. The purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment is to urge that the situation be brought to a close, to outline the simple step that could bring it to a speedy resolution and to say frankly that, after 19 months, it has gone on for far too long.
The problems of today started back in September 1999 with a whistleblowing incident. Members of the House will be aware of the whistleblowing legislation that was introduced by the Government in 1998. In 1999, three surgeons at Coventry blew the whistle on surgeons in the colorectal department because of the peri-operative mortality rate. One of the whistleblowers was Mr. Alban Barros D'Sa, who remains suspended. The immediate reaction to the whistleblowing was to suspend one of the whistleblowers; 18 months later, he remains suspended. His position should be resolved to bring order to the current disorder.
The whistleblowing incident has reached a satisfactory conclusion for one of the surgeons on whom the whistle was blown. The professional advisory panel that reported to the hospital in December 1999, only three months after the incident, made three recommendations. All have been acted upon. The surgeon has been moved from colorectal work, and a new specialist will be recruited for the work. The third recommendation was that a performance audit of the department's work in the previous four years should be undertaken. A performance audit of only two years was carried out, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider one aspect of it.
One of the reasons for blowing the whistle was the peri-operative mortality rate of operations conducted by one of the surgeons in the colorectal department. I choose

not to name him tonight because I believe that he is competent in other areas, but that he should not undertake colorectal work. While he had a pen-operative mortality rate of 20 per cent. over two years, the specialist had a rate of only 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. The national target is 5 per cent.
The statistics for reviewing performance are calculated on P values. Why do the figures show no significant difference between those surgeons' work? If we are generally applying P values, and drawing comparative conclusions, how can we claim that there is no difference in performance that poses a problem for patients when, in a two-year period, one surgeon has a 20 per cent. Peri-operative mortality rate and another has one of only 5 per cent.? The various statistics that we use, and the way in which we use them, currently lead us to that conclusion.
I revert to the position of Mr. Barros D'Sa. He was a whistleblower who was subsequently suspended on four counts. All were considered, and except for a part of one of them, he was found not to be at fault. It is important to stress that Mr. D'Sa's professional competence has not been questioned. No one claims that he is anything other than a good surgeon. When we are so desperately short of cancer surgeons and others—colorectal work is associated with cancer problems—how can a surgeon of acknowledged competence and with an undisputed professional reputation be left idle for 18 months?
Six months ago, part II of the report of an independent panel of three surgeons was produced. They were led by a noted local Queen's counsel, Jeffrey Burke. They reported that Mr. D'Sa was at fault for oppressing a junior. It is not for me to argue Mr. D'Sa's defence, which is not the purpose of the debate, but he says in his defence that he was quizzing the junior doctor rather aggressively about peri-operative mortality and failures of the operations conducted by the surgeons on whom he blew the whistle. I mention that simply in passing.
The substantive recommendation of the independent panel was that Mr. D'Sa should be reinstated. It referred to his hitherto unblemished record. The management of the hospital could easily have accepted the part II recommendation, and reinstated Mr. D'Sa with a warning. The panel believed that he should receive a written warning. The matter would thus have been brought to a speedy conclusion six months ago.
Instead of doing that, the management issued what it called a document of mitigation. As the judge it came up against was to rule, it was not so much a document of mitigation as of aggravation. In it, the management saw fit to include, as the major reason for not reinstating Mr. D'Sa, a letter that he had written to his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and copied to me as the Member of Parliament for North-West Coventry. Since we regard all matters to do with the cathedral, the police and the hospital as constituency issues, I felt it right that we should question the management's procedure in using a private and confidential letter that Mr. D'Sa wrote to his Member of Parliament as a reason for not reinstating him.
As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we took the issue to Mr. Speaker. It would be fair to say that we had to recognise that Members' correspondence does not enjoy privilege or, indeed, qualified privilege. What we say in this House enjoys total privilege and there is no way in which I would abuse that. I understand that any


correspondence that I have with my hon. Friend the Minister or other Ministers enjoys qualified privilege. However, Mr. D'Sa's letter, which was private and confidential and naturally critical of the management, was included in the management's so-called document of mitigation and submitted to those concerned as a reason for not reinstating him.
Despite all our opposition to the management proceeding in this manner, the chief executive was determined to do so. The case went to court, as we knew it would, and an injunction was taken out by the lawyers representing Mr. D'Sa. I hate to say it, but the management was humiliatingly defeated at the injunction hearing. Not only was it expressly forbidden to rely on or use the letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and copied to me: it was refused the right to rely on any surrounding information other than what was, quite rightly, in part II of the independent report prepared on the issue.
One would have thought that that would be the end of it. Enough money had been spent, enough time wasted and enough management attention dissipated—all to no good end, except for the immense legal costs. Has that contributed one iota to patient care or to concern for those who need it most in the hospital? Of course not. This has been a great and costly diversion of resources.
The management, which had taken the case to court, was condemned to pay all the costs, including those of the surgeons. One would have thought that was the end of it and that we could now proceed with the normal implementation of the independent recommendation in part II of the report. However, that was not acceptable. I am informed that the management is still pursuing the case and seeking leave to appeal against the ruling of the court. That will mean more costs, more delays and further harm. The vote of no confidence that the surgeons have determined to hold on the conduct of the case concerning Mr. D'Sa will proceed, and the Electoral Reform Society is being brought in to supervise it.
There will be growing concern in the constituency among patients and prospective patients that the hospital is in disarray. That is in no one's interests, and in no way do I want to contribute to that uncertainty by bringing this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. On the contrary, I believe that it is necessary to highlight the one simple action that can be taken that will put an end to the matter once and for all. It will remove uncertainty, restore confidence and re-establish between surgeons and management the co-operation that is so vital to the good functioning of any organisation. It is very simple. The management should be prepared to follow the recommendations of part II of the report, which was prepared by independent experts in the field who were appointed to do the job, and to proceed with the reinstatement of Mr. D'Sa.
That is why I brought the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not expect her to be able immediately to respond to my concerns about the way in which the statistics for judging the competence of surgeons are used. I hope that she will look into that matter and get back to me. However. I hope that she will be able to use her good offices to intervene, or to say that she is sufficiently aware of the situation and that it has

gone on long enough, at too much cost and with too much dissatisfaction in the hospital; I hope too that she will ensure that the part II recommendations are introduced.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on securing time to debate a topic that is clearly of considerable concern to him, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in whose constituency the Walsgrave hospital lies, but who, by convention, cannot raise any matters that relate to the hospital in the House. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends are in the Chamber for the debate.
For my hon. Friends' benefit, I wish to start with a few general observations about the Walsgrave hospital. Some newspaper headlines have given the impression that the hospital is in total crisis. The Walsgrave Hospitals national health service trust changed its status to that of a university teaching hospital at the end of October last year, when it became the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. The trust is made up of Walsgrave hospital, Coventry and Warwickshire hospital and the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby.
Against the backdrop of a challenging agenda, including changes to the configuration of services, the trust has achieved success in a number of areas. The cardiac services directorate has gained national recognition for mitral valve repairs and receives referrals from throughout the country. A new renal dialysis satellite unit has recently been opened at the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby. I recently visited the hospital and saw the new unit. The trust's renal transplant department is in the upper quartile nationally for graft acceptance. The radiology department has recently taken delivery of a new £1.2 million mobile magnetic resonance imaging scanner, to be moved regularly between the South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS trust, the George Eliot Hospital NHS trust and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust.
Work has recently started in the radiotherapy and oncology department to provide state of the art linear accelerator facilities,involving an investment of about £6 million. In partnership with the local community trust, a walk-in centre has been established, offering a seamless service to patients.
The trust is also taking the lead as the English national pilot site for colorectal cancer screening. With a catchment population of around 1 million, the uptake to date is well in excess of the target set for the pilot.
These are just some of the successes that the trust can demonstrate, in addition to which it reports a reduction in the number of nursing vacancies, and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of consultants. Of course, last year the trust achieved accreditation as a university teaching hospital.
The first issue of substance in tonight's debate was the suspension of a medical consultant at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. Where concerns are raised about professional misconduct it is


right that, as an employer, the national health service is able to investigate concerns expressed about the competence or behaviour of that employee.
Although that course of action should be a very rare event, occasionally it is necessary to suspend an employee. It is important to stress that, although it is not always perceived as such, in legal terms suspension is a neutral act and must not be used as a disciplinary sanction. Suspension is intended to protect the i interests of patients, other staff and the employee or to assist the investigative process.
As my hon Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will be aware, issues around staff management are a matter for the employing national health service body—in this case, the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. That includes matters relating to the suspension of staff from their duties. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene or comment on the individual case highlighted by my hon. Friend in the House tonight, as I understand that the case is still subject to legal proceedings. However, I note the points raised by my hon. Friend and will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the regional director of the NHS executive regional office.
My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that we are revising guidance on the handling of suspensions. In future, there should be less need to suspend employees, because medical staff with developing problems can refer themselves—or be referred by their employers—to the National Clinical Assessment Authority—the NCAA. Through a swift and accurate identification of problems and solutions, the NCAA is intended to ensure that fewer suspensions will be necessary.
The NCAA will issue guidance to NHS organisations late in 2001 to help them to identify suitable cases for referral, and to advise them on how to make such referrals. As part of its remit, the NCAA will also consider any outstanding cases that are still awaiting resolution.
In future, NHS employers must ensure that suspension is used only after all other alternatives have been considered—for example, a period of supervised retraining pending outcome of formal investigation; voluntary restriction; or referral to the NCAA with voluntary restrictions. When an employee is suspended, employers must ensure that it is for the minimum necessary period of time.
My hon. Friend draws attention to the importance of taking seriously concerns raised about the performance of individual staff members. We expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the NHS, and a culture and environment that encourage staff to feel able to raise concerns about health care matters sensibly and responsibly, without fear of victimisation.
Wherever possible, concerns raised by staff should be dealt with locally, in accordance with local policies and procedures. However, in some cases, individuals have considered the local response provided to them to be inadequate; as a consequence they have sought to raise their concerns with the NHS executive.
Officials are liaising with the regional offices to develop a protocol for handling cases raised with the NHS executive. That is likely to include identifying a first point of contact in each region. Public Concern at Work—a leading authority in that sphere—has offered to provide staff working in the Department and the NHS executive

with training on how to respond to individuals who contact the NHS executive to raise concerns. Of course, I realise that the case raised by my hon. Friend is still subject to legal proceedings, but I shall ensure that the regional office is aware of his concerns. I hope that some of the issues that he highlights are less likely to occur in future because of the measures that we are putting in place.
Before I address my hon. Friend's concerns on the standard of colorectal services at the trust, it is important to raise a matter covered in the local press today. I read a leading article stating that
Surgery in the hospital is in turmoil.
I must confess to the House that, in preparing for the debate, I have seen nothing that would lead me to such a sweeping conclusion. We need to be very careful when using language that causes great concern to the local population about the standard of service provided by their local NHS hospital. I believe that it could do a great disservice to the hard-working staff at the trust to read lead stories making such general accusations.
On the standard of colorectal services at the trust, I am advised that my hon Friends have already had sight of the outcome of the detailed investigations conducted by both the trust and the regional director of public health following the concerns that were raised. I have read the report; the regional director agreed that there were issues that needed to be addressed at the trust. I understand that the regional director of public health made recommendations relating to future staffing levels for the service, and to the appropriate grading for staff involved in provision of colorectal surgery at the trust. I am informed that the trust is acting on those recommendations, and that a fully qualified colorectal surgeon has been appointed and is expected to start employment with the trust next week. I have asked the regional office to continue to monitor the establishment of that service at the trust in the short to medium term. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West about the basis of some of the statistical analysis. I think it would be best for me to write to him after the debate with precise details of how the analysis is determined.
My hon. Friend also expresses concerns about the trust's senior management team, noting that there had been a vote of no confidence by a very small number of surgeons at the trust. I am aware that, on 26 February, my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues met Nigel Crisp, the chief executive of the NHS so that he might have an opportunity to take account of their concerns about the management of the trust. I understand that, following that meeting, Nigel Crisp spoke to the regional director of the NHS executive and asked him to ensure that concerns raised by my hon. Friends were being addressed.
I am also of course aware of the issue that was raised as a point of order in the House on 17 January, relating to the use of a letter. Mr. Speaker has responded and it would be inappropriate in that context for me to add anything further.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was disgraceful for the management to seek to use a letter written in confidence to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and copied to myself, as a reason for not reinstating and


putting in hand the part II recommendations? Would she not as a parliamentarian, let alone a Minister, deprecate that form of behaviour?

Ms Stuart: As a parliamentarian I also accept the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker has responded to the issue and I am content with that.
I recognise that my hon. Friend has some very real concerns about the matters that he has raised today, and of course it is important that they are addressed. It must be recognised that the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has been faced with a challenging agenda over the past few years. It has made great progress in many areas. The trust has had to implement some major developments regarding the reconfiguration of services. The trust's management has driven forward the development agenda while maintaining good quality services to the population that the trust serves.
At the start of my speech, I provided my hon. Friends with examples of some of the successes and improvements made by the trust, but every institution is capable of even further improvement and I am sure that that will happen in this case, too.
Even though there have been service changes, it is incumbent on the trust chief executive and chair to ensure that the services provided at the trust meet the needs of patients and ensure their safety. As I outlined earlier, the colorectal service at the trust has been investigated by the regional director of public health. Following his investigations, the trust has acted on his recommendations with regard to future management of the service, and a new fully qualified colorectal surgeon is expected to start work at the trust next week.

Mr. Robinson: That point has been covered. Will my hon. Friend say why, in her opinion, the management will not accept the findings of part II as a simple resolution of our problems so that we can get back to the good progress that we all recognise that the trust has been making?

Ms Stuart: The management and the management style of each trust is a local issue. The difficulty is that, as I understand it, there are still legal proceedings in this case. It would be inappropriate and foolish of a Minister to try

to second-guess anyone else's reasons but, more important, it would help no one at this stage not to allow a due process to continue. We have made it clear that both the chief executive of the NHS and the regional office are well aware of the situation, but ultimately issues regarding employees are the responsibility of the local employing trust, which must take the decision. Our role is to ensure that proper processes are followed.

Mr. Robinson: It is on that point that we find it most difficult to accept what my hon. Friend is saying. The simple fact is that this process will cause great costs to the hospital—tens of thousands of pounds of further useless legal costs are being incurred, all to no good purpose, because the legal problems, of which I am as well aware as my hon. Friend is, will continue only as long as the trust is intent on a legal resolution. The trust has a recommendation, which it could and should implement. The further this matter goes on, the more difficult the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and I are put in, because our letter, a confidential House of Commons document, is being used—or an attempt is being made to use it—by the trust management to furthen its legal case, in which it has already been humiliatingly denied.

Ms Stuart: I think that my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into pre-empting either a decision of the court or a management decision by an NHS trust. Surely it must be up to local trusts, as the employer, to have the final decision on the most appropriate way to proceed, and I would not wish to pre-empt the reasons for their decision.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he is still dissatisfied with the answers provided today, he should request a meeting with the Minister responsible for the midlands region, the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), so that his concerns can be looked at in more detail. I am sure that he will meet my colleagues to discuss his concerns if he thinks that is necessary.
On employment matters relating to an individual consultant where legal proceedings are still on-going, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to do anything other than to say that it is a local matter for the trust and that we will ensure that the due process is being followed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.